PDA

View Full Version : The other kind of brokenness: Spells the rules just don't cover



Chronos
2008-01-21, 02:47 PM
From another thread:
I, and a lot of players I know, avoid the Magic Jar spell because it's broken. Not just in the "overpowered" sense--the rules aren't equipped to handle it.

For example, what happens if you cast Magic Jar with something that lets you cast spells without the material components? What happens if, god forbid, you Chain it? How about inherent stat boosts, do those go with you? Age categories? And so on.I'd been thinking about starting a thread about this anyway, so this seemed like a good time. The two examples I'd mention:

1: Polymorph Any Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm): The duration factors refer to things being of the "same class (mammals, fungi, metals, etc.)", but the notion of "class" doesn't occur anwhere else in the rules. Most people seem to use type and/or subtype, but that doesn't really match: Both an owl familiar and a rat familiar are "Magical beast (augmented animal), for instance, but the rat is a mammal and the owl is a bird. And the examples given in the spell imply that a manticore is considered a mammal, despite being a different type entirely from a (mundane) shrew. And what class is a griffon? You could make a case for mammal or bird. Is it both? And if so, could you make a transformation of, say, giant eagle to lion last longer, if you turned the eagle into a griffon first?

For that matter, in a D&D world, even the broader category of "Kingdom" isn't entirely well-defined. Presumably, a stone golem is "mineral", a nymph is "animal", and a treant is "vegetable". But what about a dryad: Is she animal or vegetable? Or a xorn: Mineral or animal? Or a shield guardian, made of wood and stone: Vegetable or mineral?

2: Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) (or Ring Gates (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#ringGates), for that matter). No, not the calling function; the portal function. From the spell text:
The gate itself is a circular hoop or disk from 5 to 20 feet in diameter (caster’s choice), oriented in the direction you desire when it comes into existence (typically vertical and facing you). It is a two-dimensional window looking into the plane you specified when casting the spell, and anyone or anything that moves through is shunted instantly to the other side.

A gate has a front and a back. Creatures moving through the gate from the front are transported to the other plane; creatures moving through it from the back are not. I'm sure they thought they were fixing some sort of problem with the front/back thing, but it causes more problems than it solves. Let's say that I'm standing next to a fighter, and I cast a Gate between us (facing me). Now, the fighter reaches out to grab me. Since he's reaching through the back side of the gate, his arms go through on the same plane, without any magical effects, and he's able to grab me, no problem. He then pulls me toward him... What happens now? I'm moved through the front side of the gate, so I'm transported into another plane. How is he pulling me into another plane, when he's staying on this plane? His arms are now moving forwards through the portal... Are they moved into the other plane, too (leaving them detached from his body, which is still on this plane)? What does someone watching from the other plane see, a perfect cross-section of his ams, as if severed cleanly? And what happens if, instead of his arms, he sticks a pole through, which I then superglue to something on my side... Is the pole plus thing glued to it all one object now? What happens to that object when it's pulled back through? All of this could have been avoided, if they had just said that both sides of the gate work the same way.

What other examples are there of spells (or items, or feats, or whatever) which create situations the rules just don't cover?

Tokiko Mima
2008-01-21, 03:04 PM
The big bad grand-daddy of all spells that the rules aren't really designed to handle is Antimagic Field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm).

For example it's possible to teleport/plane shift into and out of an antimagic field, because the description exempts instantaneous conjurations from being effected. Summoned creatures with spell resistance get the opportunity to ignore the effects of an AMF, but not if they weren't inside the area the AMF was originally being cast at the initial casting time. Summoned creatures with SR who resist the spell presumably are allowed to use all supernatual, Spell-like, or spells because they have resisted the entire effect of the AMF.

PirateMonk
2008-01-21, 03:18 PM
2: Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) (or Ring Gates (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#ringGates), for that matter). No, not the calling function; the portal function. From the spell text:I'm sure they thought they were fixing some sort of problem with the front/back thing, but it causes more problems than it solves. Let's say that I'm standing next to a fighter, and I cast a Gate between us (facing me). Now, the fighter reaches out to grab me. Since he's reaching through the back side of the gate, his arms go through on the same plane, without any magical effects, and he's able to grab me, no problem. He then pulls me toward him... What happens now? I'm moved through the front side of the gate, so I'm transported into another plane. How is he pulling me into another plane, when he's staying on this plane? His arms are now moving forwards through the portal... Are they moved into the other plane, too (leaving them detached from his body, which is still on this plane)? What does someone watching from the other plane see, a perfect cross-section of his ams, as if severed cleanly? And what happens if, instead of his arms, he sticks a pole through, which I then superglue to something on my side... Is the pole plus thing glued to it all one object now? What happens to that object when it's pulled back through? All of this could have been avoided, if they had just said that both sides of the gate work the same way.

But that still might leave some problems. What happens when you walk to the gate in such a way that it goes through you? Would you get cut in half? What would that look like if someone was watching from the other side?

Chronos
2008-01-21, 04:02 PM
For example it's possible to teleport/plane shift into and out of an antimagic field, because the description exempts instantaneous conjurations from being effected. Summoned creatures with spell resistance get the opportunity to ignore the effects of an AMF, but not if they weren't inside the area the AMF was originally being cast at the initial casting time. Summoned creatures with SR who resist the spell presumably are allowed to use all supernatual, Spell-like, or spells because they have resisted the entire effect of the AMF.All of those are arguments that Antimagic Field isn't as good as it's supposed to be, but it's still mostly clear what effect the spell has. What I'm talking about here are the sorts of things which lead to divide-by-cucumber errors and crash the Universe. Or at least, things which do something, but it's not clear what.


But that still might leave some problems. What happens when you walk to the gate in such a way that it goes through you? Would you get cut in half? What would that look like if someone was watching from the other side?If you mean walking into the edge of the Gate, that's a problem with the current version of the spell, too. I would guess, though, that you just can't pass through the edge of the Gate, and if you try to force something through, it gets sliced in half.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-22, 08:12 AM
I can think of several "breaks" that were introduced to make things easier on players.

For instance, the new fly spell causes you to float, rather than drop like a stone, when it's dispelled. This is, to my knowledge, the sole exception where a dispel doesn't remove a spell, but only part of it.

Another example is that the new rust monster still corrodes and wears down your equipment, but for some reason this destruction disappears after ten minutes. Because, you know, it's easier on the players.

This is, of course, the result of basing fluff on crunch, rather than crunch on fluff. The latter tends to make more sense from an in-world perspective.

hewhosaysfish
2008-01-22, 08:53 AM
Another example is that the new rust monster still corrodes and wears down your equipment, but for some reason this destruction disappears after ten minutes.

Huh? character limit


Rust (Ex)

A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, falling to pieces and becoming useless immediately. The touch can destroy up to a 10-foot cube of metal instantly. Magic armor and weapons, and other magic items made of metal, must succeed on a DC 17 Reflex save or be dissolved. The save DC is Constitution-based and includes a +4 racial bonus.

A metal weapon that deals damage to a rust monster corrodes immediately. Wooden, stone, and other nonmetallic weapons are unaffected.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-22, 09:02 AM
Huh? character limit

Yes, that would be the old rust monster. One of the designers of fourth edition has at some point covered the new one, in Dragon Magazine iirc, that, in his opinion, fixed the problem with the old one, specifically by making the item destruction wear off after time - i.e. the item "magically" regenerates, with no attempt at justifying this.

Note how, similarly, several of the new 4E mechanics likewise have no attempt to justify them. Opinions so far are divided between "that doesn't make sense" and "hey, it's magic so it can do whatever we want it to, and that will automatically make as much sense as anything else in D&D".

Fighteer
2008-01-22, 11:00 AM
If the Gate spell actually can be interpreted as slicing things in half, that automatically makes it one of the more destructive spells in the game, since the effect has no saving throw and (presumably) does not allow for spell resistance. Who needs Power Word: Kill when you have a 20-foot disc that slices anything in half that comes in contact with its edge, and sends one half to another plane of existence?

Obviously, you're talking about RAW, but some kind of house rule (or at least house interpretation) would have to come into play here to mitigate the obviously ridiculous aspects of this spell. For example, I'd say that for an object to "pass through" the gate, it would have to have started entirely on one side to begin with. There's plenty of precedent for this in fiction; you walk innocently through the "magic door" from the wrong side, turn around, and walk back to find yourself teleported.

The idea of supergluing (or otherwise physically attaching) yourself to an object pushed through the Gate from the other side to avoid getting sucked into it is fairly ingenious and could be an interesting way to circumvent a Gate (or similar spell) used to block a doorway or portal, if the DM decided to permit it.

As for PAO, it's already so broken that I don't think there's any point in further dissecting its flaws.

Leicontis
2008-01-22, 11:21 AM
One that I ran across recently is the Phantasmal Killer spell:

You create a phantasmal image of the most fearsome creature imaginable to the subject simply by forming the fears of the subject’s subconscious mind into something that its conscious mind can visualize: this most horrible beast. Only the spell’s subject can see the phantasmal killer. You see only a vague shape. The target first gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal. If that save fails, the phantasm touches the subject, and the subject must succeed on a Fortitude save or die from fear. Even if the Fortitude save is successful, the subject takes 3d6 points of damage.

If the subject of a phantasmal killer attack succeeds in disbelieving and is wearing a helm of telepathy, the beast can be turned upon you. You must then disbelieve it or become subject to its deadly fear attack.
Bolding mine. It seems less than 100% clear to me whether the phantasm seen by the caster of a turned Phantasmal Killer is the one seen by the original target, or a new phantasm generated from the caster's mind.

You might wonder why it matters. Well, for one thing, the target of this spell is shown their own worst nightmare creature. Depending on the caster and original target, this might be more or less frightening to the caster. If one of them is H.P. Lovecraft and the other a naive five-year-old peasant child (never mind how he could cast it), their threshhold of nightmares is likely to be widely different. An ugly goblin is unlikely to scare Lovecraft much, but Cthulhu would probably be more terrifying to the child than the goblin, because it's more horrific than the most horrific thing the child could imagine.

Of course, if this has been erratad and I just haven't seen it, the point is moot, but it would have been far less ambiguous to say that the spell is turned back on the caster, rather than the phantasm.

Fighteer
2008-01-22, 11:26 AM
Re: Phantasmal Killer

I imagine this is one of the things that simply didn't need to be stated, as one can assume that the killing terror is part of the spell's mechanism, and the helm of telepathy allows the wearer to reflect the terror back upon the caster. Ordinarily, the mere act of confronting their worst fear doesn't kill someone.

The mechanical description of the spell is quite clear, even if the fluff is slightly ambiguous.

daggaz
2008-01-22, 11:53 AM
I dont know, gate isnt that broken, just requires a little bit of rule zero and such..

We just houseruled that you had to be mostly in the gate, at which point it kinda 'sucked' the rest of your body in with it. No cutting things in half. If you didnt get your body mostly in it, you passsed harmlessly thru. Same effect works with reaching thru it. Nothing happens, you dont even notice there is a gate (its invisible from the wrong side) but as soon as walk half way thru it, it will suck your whole body in if you try to turn around.

Polymorph I just ban outright from my games now, but as for the mess up with class/type, I just used to use both and overlapped them. So first off, it had to be in the same type (animal, magical beast, humanoid, etc.) and once it was in the same type, it also had to be in the same 'class' so while animal covers a million things, mammal narrows it down, and temperate forest mammal narrows it down even further (really, DM discretion is involved). Still, this just got so confusing and a pain, we dropped the spell entirely (on top of all the other brokenness).

Chronos
2008-01-22, 01:20 PM
If one of them is H.P. Lovecraft and the other a naive five-year-old peasant child (never mind how he could cast it), their threshhold of nightmares is likely to be widely different.Oh, definitely. The five-year-old can imagine things far worse than Lovecraft ever could. I mean, have you ever read Lovecraft? He doesn't describe any of his monsters. He just tells you that they're horrific; any hack could do that. Five-year-olds, though, can have some vicious imaginations.

But more on topic, it's possible that what's horrific to one person is actually nice for another. Compare Room 101, from 1984. For Winston Smith, the worst thing possible in the world is rats. But there are people out there who think rats are cute, and keep them as pets, and even let them do things like crawl over their face. If a wizard with a rat familiar cast the spell on Winston Smith, and he for some reason were wearing a Helm of Telepathy, one would expect the spell to just fizzle.

daggaz, your interpretation of Gate works better than what's in the rules, but it still has problems when you try to define what constitutes a single object. Is a brick an object, or is a brick wall an object? Is a chain an object, or only the links? How much of a connection is needed: Are two things "one object" if tied together with strong rope? With twine? With thread, or spiderweb?

TomTheRat
2008-01-22, 01:24 PM
any hack could do that.

Really? Any hack can produce Lovecraft's works? Half of the reason they're good is that they leave it to your imagination delicately enough for it to have meaning.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-22, 01:39 PM
I dont know, gate isnt that broken, just requires a little bit of rule zero and such..

Oberoni fallacy.

Prometheus
2008-01-22, 01:42 PM
I always ruled that the front of a gate is nonfunctional (like air) if anything is poking through the back to the front and the back of a gate is nonfunctional (like a brick wall) if anything is poking through the back to the front. Therefore it is easy to disable as long as the back is exposed, which is why the gate is usually put against a wall or a natural opening. Also, you cannot interrupt anythings entrance too an from. Again, not RAW, but works for me.

This way, anything is one "object".

AKA_Bait
2008-01-22, 01:43 PM
daggaz, your interpretation of Gate works better than what's in the rules, but it still has problems when you try to define what constitutes a single object. Is a brick an object, or is a brick wall an object? Is a chain an object, or only the links? How much of a connection is needed: Are two things "one object" if tied together with strong rope? With twine? With thread, or spiderweb?

I felt like I was reading a section of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Mantinence there Chronos. The 'what is an object' problem isn't really a problem with Gate as much as it's a general problem with D&D. Does anyone else remember the debates about if being in a sack or some such kept one from being disentigrated?

"I polymorph your ear into a badger!"

Draz74
2008-01-22, 01:48 PM
Shrink Item.
Rope Trick.
Reverse Gravity.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-22, 02:35 PM
If you mean walking into the edge of the Gate, that's a problem with the current version of the spell, too. I would guess, though, that you just can't pass through the edge of the Gate, and if you try to force something through, it gets sliced in half.

You could just make a gate spherical.

Artanis
2008-01-22, 02:57 PM
Another way to houserule Gate is that the edge is solid (that is, cannot be passed through, as though there was an actual ring around the gate) and that BOTH sides are "front" in that they go straight to the other plane.

Bryn
2008-01-22, 02:59 PM
What about having gates that must be made on a solid surface, rather than existing in free space? If the surface is damaged or destroyed, the gate is too?

Also, one of the gates would be orange, and the other one would be blue. :smallwink: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_%28video_game%29)

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-22, 03:09 PM
Here's a real question. Magnificent mansion, what happens when you cast it twice? And then what happens when the duration expires?

Also, Polymorph. A half-dozen erratas, and I'm still not sure how hit points work under it.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-22, 04:34 PM
You could just make a gate spherical.

This is problematic since the text specifically says that it has two sides. Technically, a sphere only has one 'face' or 'side'. Unless the gate is hollow and then I suppose you could rule that the 'inside' is the side that doesn't work...

Kami2awa
2008-01-22, 04:45 PM
I mean, have you ever read Lovecraft? He doesn't describe any of his monsters. He just tells you that they're horrific; any hack could do that.

That's completely untrue. HP Lovecraft does sometimes leave descriptions to the imagination, but the statement that he doesn't describe ANY of his monsters is totally untrue.

In At the Mountains of Madness, many, many pages are devoted to a scientific description of the Elder Things, and here's his description of the dreaded Shoggoth from the same book:


It was the utter, objective embodiment of the fantastic novelist's "thing that should not be"; and its nearest comprehensible analogue is a vast, onrushing subway train as one sees it from a station platform - the great black front looming colossally out of infinite subterranean distance, constellated with strangely colored lights and filling the prodigious burrow as a piston fills a cylinder.

But we were not on a station platform. We were on the track ahead as the nightmare, plastic column of fetid black iridescence oozed tightly onward through its fifteen-foot sinus, gathering unholy speed and driving before it a spiral, rethickening cloud of the pallid abyss vapor. It was a terrible, indescribable thing vaster than any subway train - a shapeless congeries of protoplasmic bubbles, faintly self-luminous, and with myriads of temporary eyes forming and un-forming as pustules of greenish light all over the tunnel-filling front that bore down upon us...

Or the Deep Ones from The Shadow Over Innsmouth


And yet I saw them in a limitless stream - flopping, hopping, croaking, bleating - urging inhumanly through the spectral moonlight in a grotesque, malignant saraband of fantastic nightmare. And some of them had tall tiaras of that nameless whitish-gold metal ... and some were strangely robed ... and one, who led the way, was clad in a ghoulishly humped black coat and striped trousers, and had a man's felt hat perched on the shapeless thing that answered for a head.

I think their predominant colour was a greyish-green, though they had white bellies. They were mostly shiny and slippery, but the ridges of their backs were scaly. Their forms vaguely suggested the anthropoid, while their heads were the heads of fish, with prodigious bulging eyes that never closed. At the sides of their necks were palpitating gills, and their long paws were webbed. They hopped irregularly, sometimes on two legs and sometimes on four. I was somehow glad that they had no more than four limbs. Their croaking, baying voices, clearly articulate speech, held all the dark shades of expression which their staring faces lacked.


Lovecraft's work is distinguished by, if anything, extremely LONG and detailed descriptions of his imagined monsters.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-22, 04:58 PM
This is problematic since the text specifically says that it has two sides. Technically, a sphere only has one 'face' or 'side'. Unless the gate is hollow and then I suppose you could rule that the 'inside' is the side that doesn't work...

Well, as long as we're houseruling, why not change the shape to spherical? That way, there's no question as to who it's affecting. You're either in it or not. Forget this whole "sides" crap. Facing "doesn't exist" in D&D anyway.

Sebastian
2008-01-22, 05:48 PM
Yes, that would be the old rust monster. One of the designers of fourth edition has at some point covered the new one, in Dragon Magazine iirc, that, in his opinion, fixed the problem with the old one, specifically by making the item destruction wear off after time - i.e. the item "magically" regenerates, with no attempt at justifying this.

Note how, similarly, several of the new 4E mechanics likewise have no attempt to justify them. Opinions so far are divided between "that doesn't make sense" and "hey, it's magic so it can do whatever we want it to, and that will automatically make as much sense as anything else in D&D".
the rust monster was (and still is) on the wizard site, author is Mike Mearls himself and it is one of my main source of worries about 4e.

But yeah the "problem" is that all those spells are residual from previous editions of D&D, edition where to create a spell meant first describe what the spell do and then try to convert it into rules, rather than think a spell that have a certain mechanical rule effect and try to come up with some rationale for how exactly it works (hopefully something better than "it's magic"), like 3e and probably 4e does . I rather like the old way better, because i don't think magic should have strictly codified and rigidly organized effects but it should be, you know, magical.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-22, 05:59 PM
Actually I think the magic system of 3e is one of the dullest I've ever read, while the one one of 2e is one of my favorites, but that is another story.

It's...um, it's the same system.

Sebastian
2008-01-22, 06:06 PM
It's...um, it's the same system.


No, no, it is not. It just look the same, but there are huge differences between the two systems.

Solo
2008-01-22, 06:12 PM
Lovecraft's work is distinguished by, if anything, extremely LONG and detailed descriptions of his imagined monsters.

And racism.

HP Lovecraft was a horrible, horrible human being.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-22, 06:21 PM
No, no, it is not. It just look the same, but there are huge differences between the two systems.

...you can't just say, "They look the same but they're really different," without actually saying how they're different. Enlighten me.

Rutee
2008-01-22, 06:33 PM
Oh, definitely. The five-year-old can imagine things far worse than Lovecraft ever could. I mean, have you ever read Lovecraft? He doesn't describe any of his monsters. He just tells you that they're horrific; any hack could do that. Five-year-olds, though, can have some vicious imaginations.

*Snickers maniacally*

Neon Knight
2008-01-22, 06:38 PM
And racism.

HP Lovecraft was a horrible, horrible human being.

To be fair, it was the early 20th century. I'm willing to bet most people were racist to some degree.

mostlyharmful
2008-01-22, 06:40 PM
This is problematic since the text specifically says that it has two sides. Technically, a sphere only has one 'face' or 'side'. Unless the gate is hollow and then I suppose you could rule that the 'inside' is the side that doesn't work...

I've thought about this one in the past and I've come up with a workable homebrew solution in two parts.

Part 1. The Mobius Strip - It helps to think of the "Gate" as an annomally which doesn't strictly have a "back" or "frount" but rather it's a singularity that only exists from a single (albeit ildefined) direction. You can only go through it one way because that's the only way it exists. From "behind" it's invisible and intangible. You either trigger it or you don't, either way rule two prevents splicing down the middle or any other stupid situations.

2. The Spiritually-Defined Object - Magic identifies objects by what "souls" define them as, hence no casting light on someones eyeballs since they think of themselves as a single entity not a collection of organs no matter how acurrate that is, no teleporting a rock into an enemies chest, no turning into mist inside someones body (not because they physically can't but because the soul resists and it never fails a save thankfully). If someone can and does think of themselves as a single contiguous entity with whatever came out from behind the Gate he can get pulled past it with a ten foot pole and superglue, however if he thinks of it in those terms he gets sucked to bermuda. Obviously this one opens up a whole raft of possible other problems and every call devolves to DM fiat but them's the breaks if you involve reality breaking weirdness into any sensible conversation and it still sounds a couple hundred times more sensible than trying to talk to some of my particle physics friends:smallconfused:

Jimblee
2008-01-22, 06:41 PM
And racism.

HP Lovecraft was a horrible, horrible human being.

Racism isn't necessarily a candidate for making someone horrible, its just an extremely ugly quality. I know some very nice racists. Also, you should check out Tolkien's notes for the appearance of some of his monsters...


Polymorph Any Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm):

As a side note, I happen to think Polymorph Any Object is one of the more horrible spells in DnD, on an evilness scale. I mean, if evilness is creating suffering in others for selfish reasons, no good reasons, uncaring reasons, ect ect... I mean, turning a pebble into a human, for just 20 minutes? Can you imagine the pain that person must go through, knowing his fate? Or being turned into some sort of little animal, knowing that soon you'll forget that you were ever human? Oh, boy, and thats not even including the sick, imaginative stuff you can turn others into.

Oh, and in order to stay on subject, I somehow doubt that "class" refers to "Monstrous humanoid" or any of those. And whenever I've encountered it's usage, anything thats "half-n-half" is both. A dryad being turned into a tree shouldn't count against it's duration, and neither should turning a dryad into a human. Or another fey, even (You don't say, "it can't be permanent, because she's also half-tree" when someone turns a dryad into a nymph)

Sebastian
2008-01-22, 07:16 PM
...you can't just say, "They look the same but they're really different," without actually saying how they're different. Enlighten me.

Well, IMHO the differences are many, the ones I think are more important (or the one that first come to the mind) are:

round duration, in AD&D rounds were one minute, in 3.x 6 seconds, this means in AD&D many spells were useful even outside of combat, in 3.x expecially after the big nerfing of 3.5 a good 90% of the spells have a sense only for use into a combat.

memorization time: in 3.x a wizard can use all his spells every day with almost no repercussion, for a 20 level wizard these are 4 nine level spells every day, just for his higher level, in AD&D a caster need to think twice before to cast his higher level spells because he is never sure if he'll have the time to prepare them the morning after.

in 3.x there are a lot of ways to cast two spells for rounds, there are probably ways to cast 3 or even more spells for round, in AD&D not even the gods could do that.

magic item creations, did I even have to explain where they are different? Many don't like AD&D system, I simply love it, is my favorite system for magic item creation ever. It is the only way I think magic item creation should be handled and I hope that 4e bring something of it back with his item creation rituals idea, (I doubt it, but still hope), and many of the same ideas apply to spell research.

more generally the philosopy behind the spells are different, AD&D spells unpredictable components and /or had dangerous side-effects, raise dead spell had a chance to kill you almost permanently, Haste make you age (with a chance to die IIRC) fly had a random, unknown duration and no automatic parachute, it also had a longer duration so it was not just a combat spell. The same for polymoprh than in AD&D was more a utility-movement spell than a combat spell, etc, etc.3.x spell mostly are just a mechanical effect with some sort (often lame) rationalization and with no worse side effect than some XP or gold loss. I think that is the true problem, 3.x spells are simply boring.

There are some other points (saving throws for example) and someone can even think that the 3.x system is better or more to their tastes but I think there should be no doubts that they works very differently, (It is not by chance that the more 3.x spells that give more problems are those that were passed down from previous editions and not were changed to be totally unrecognizable, (gate, polymorph, shapechange, etc, etc) or, as the op said spell that are not covered by the rules.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-22, 07:39 PM
Well, IMHO the differences are many, the ones I think are more important (or the one that first come to the mind) are:

round duration, in AD&D rounds were one minute, in 3.x 6 seconds, this means in AD&D many spells were useful even outside of combat, in 3.x expecially after the big nerfing of 3.5 a good 90% of the spells have a sense only for use into a combat.

memorization time: in 3.x a wizard can use all his spells every day with almost no repercussion, for a 20 level wizard these are 4 nine level spells every day, just for his higher level, in AD&D a caster need to think twice before to cast his higher level spells because he is never sure if he'll have the time to prepare them the morning after.

in 3.x there are a lot of ways to cast two spells for rounds, there are probably ways to cast 3 or even more spells for round, in AD&D not even the gods could do that.

magic item creations, did I even have to explain where they are different? Many don't like AD&D system, I simply love it, is my favorite system for magic item creation ever. It is the only way I think magic item creation should be handled and I hope that 4e bring something of it back with his item creation rituals idea, (I doubt it, but still hope), and many of the same ideas apply to spell research.

more generally the philosopy behind the spells are different, AD&D spells unpredictable components and /or had dangerous side-effects, raise dead spell had a chance to kill you almost permanently, Haste make you age (with a chance to die IIRC) fly had a random, unknown duration and no automatic parachute, it also had a longer duration so it was not just a combat spell. The same for polymoprh than in AD&D was more a utility-movement spell than a combat spell, etc, etc.3.x spell mostly are just a mechanical effect with some sort (often lame) rationalization and with no worse side effect than some XP or gold loss. I think that is the true problem, 3.x spells are simply boring.

There are some other points (saving throws for example) and someone can even think that the 3.x system is better or more to their tastes but I think there should be no doubts that they works very differently, (It is not by chance that the more 3.x spells that give more problems are those that were passed down from previous editions and not were changed to be totally unrecognizable, (gate, polymorph, shapechange, etc, etc) or, as the op said spell that are not covered by the rules.

I'm not going to line-by-line this, since that kind of arguing always grates my nerves, so I'll summarize. Most of what you've said here boils down to, "The spells don't always work as intended and occasionally blow up in the caster's face." Personally, I don't think a player should have the potential to be penalized by using his innate abilities. I do believe that a character should have a chance for failure when using their class features, and that this chance of failure should be based off The d20 Mechanic, but I feel that actively penalizing someone for a random-chance effect--like 2e haste's system shock save--is not a good way to design a game. Certainly, some material components should be hard to come by, some spells should be difficult to cast. But this should not be represented by potential side effects or penalties, but rather by fixed, constant costs.

As for pretty much everything else you said (item creation, multiple spells per round, round length, &c.), I'll agree with you on those. Those are different, but I personally don't include them with "the magic system". Some people do, and that's fine. I'm just not one of them.

horseboy
2008-01-22, 11:52 PM
And racism.

HP Lovecraft was a horrible, horrible human being.

Would a 5 year old be afraid of a Welshman? Would he even know what one was?

Curmudgeon
2008-01-23, 12:18 AM
Two spells that I consider "broken", for entirely different reasons:

Shatter. This spell's power depends entirely on how the DM interprets the word "solid". If it's the basic "rigid, not flexible" then Shatter has the right degree of power for a low-level spell. If the DM uses the chemical definition "neither liquid nor gas" then Shatter becomes the low-level spell to use in combat. A player going from one type of DM to the other is going to experience mental whiplash -- either having their horse's saddle zapped from under them while charging, or finding their favorite trick does diddly -- which is why this spell is "broken".

Mordenkainen's Disjunction. This one can only be used at high levels, and most self-respecting high-level characters are going to be brimming over with magic items. I've seen a single casting of this stretch one standard action into two real-time hours of character bookkeeping, looking up each magic item in its source book to see if it might have a better saving throw than the character holding it. Mordenkainen's Disjunction takes all the fun out of D&D, which is why it's most extremely "broken".

Greenfaun
2008-01-23, 01:04 AM
What about having gates that must be made on a solid surface, rather than existing in free space? If the surface is damaged or destroyed, the gate is too?

Also, one of the gates would be orange, and the other one would be blue. :smallwink: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_%28video_game%29)

Now you're thinking with portals gates!

The cake is a lie

The big hitters have been identified, in terms of broken spells. I always kinda wished the rules for the Permanency spell made more sense, but I do get why they're the way they are.

Sebastian
2008-01-23, 03:06 AM
I'm not going to line-by-line this, since that kind of arguing always grates my nerves, so I'll summarize. Most of what you've said here boils down to, "The spells don't always work as intended and occasionally blow up in the caster's face." Personally, I don't think a player should have the potential to be penalized by using his innate abilities. I do believe that a character should have a chance for failure when using their class features, and that this chance of failure should be based off The d20 Mechanic, but I feel that actively penalizing someone for a random-chance effect--like 2e haste's system shock save--is not a good way to design a game. Certainly, some material components should be hard to come by, some spells should be difficult to cast. But this should not be represented by potential side effects or penalties, but rather by fixed, constant costs.

boring and predictable, exactly what magic should not be.
IMHO, of course
And "spells are dangerous" is just part of it. it is more spells are complicated and need some thinking to use it efficiently. That is maybe the main difference between 3 and previous editions, in D&D 2nd editon and precedents the game was supposed to be a challenge for the *players*, you had to think to use the quirks of the system , not only the magic one, (and there were many) to your advantage, in 3e it is supposed to be a challenge for the *characters*, you don't have to worry about quirks because the system don't have them (not intentionally at least), you can immediatly and almost always know what will be the possible conseguences of your future actions (and many players seems to complain when this don't happen i.e. can't have all the informations), I don't think this is realistic, desiderable (in a RPG, at least, I could like it in a pure strategy game, like chess) or even particolary fun, but that is just me.


As for pretty much everything else you said (item creation, multiple spells per round, round length, &c.), I'll agree with you on those. Those are different, but I personally don't include them with "the magic system". Some people do, and that's fine. I'm just not one of them.

maybe they are not magic system (but if they aren't what is?), but they influence how it works. Just to make one example a system where you can store away spells just spending gold and xps (wands and scrolls) it is, or at least works, very differently from one where you had to search for cloud's whispers and dragon's songs to do the same. You can like more one over the other, but they are different.

but I don't particolary like these arguments, too that is why avoided to elaborate the first time, the risk of argument escalation it is too high. :smallbiggrin:


NOTE: I'm not saying the 2nd edition system is perfect, I agree, for example that the system shock for haste was a little harsh (understatement) I'm just sayng that the no "negative permanent conseguences at all" of 3e is just dull and if I had to choose between dull and harsh I take harsh (In a game, at least. In real life I'd take dull every day of the week, thank you. :) )

Kami2awa
2008-01-23, 04:02 AM
To be fair, it was the early 20th century. I'm willing to bet most people were racist to some degree.

It was 1910s-1920s USA; racism was built into the fabric of society. It will show up in any literature written at the time.

And Solo, what you are saying about Lovecraft is irrelevant to the thread and bordering on Trolling.

Chronos
2008-01-23, 03:10 PM
It should be noted that, as with so many other aspects of the system, 2e didn't actually have item creation rules, just guidelines. Many players did use the "cloud's whispers and dragon's songs" system (which I also prefer, incidentally), but that was just one optional rule out of three or four to choose from. The 2e rules also allowed for something like the 3e item creation system, except even easier, since you just had to have a couple of spells (Enchant Item and Permanency), not any feats (which didn't exist).

Illiterate Scribe
2008-01-24, 03:25 PM
Kami2awa - see 'vigilante modding', under forum rules. I know that technically this creates a liar paradox, since I can't tell you about that without going against it myself, but just as some friendly advice. On the subject, I think that it doesn't preclude reading it, but it should be borne in mind, like in Conrad.


What about having gates that must be made on a solid surface, rather than existing in free space? If the surface is damaged or destroyed, the gate is too?

Also, one of the gates would be orange, and the other one would be blue. :smallwink: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_%28video_game%29)

Also, something I was trying to break GMod with a while back with.

You have an Aperture Science Handheld Port- gate, on two opposite panels, on two vertical walls. The gates lead to an identical room on another plane, whose gates lead back to where yours are. You then rotate the wall, so that one's on the ceiling, and one's on the floor. You stand on one of them, and, as you're falling through, teleport yourself and the panel with the gate on until it's touching the other panel - an apprentice moves the other two panels into a similar position to yours. Where are you now?

AKA_Bait
2008-01-24, 03:37 PM
You have an Aperture Science Handheld Port- gate, on two opposite panels, on two vertical walls. The gates lead to an identical room on another plane, whose gates lead back to where yours are. You then rotate the wall, so that one's on the ceiling, and one's on the floor. You stand on one of them, and, as you're falling through, teleport yourself and the panel with the gate on until it's touching the other panel - an apprentice moves the other two panels into a similar position to yours. Where are you now?

That doesn't seem problematic as one person at least could not do it. To keep the Gate functioning requires concentration. One cannot cast a second spell when concentrating on the first.

I suppose, if you had 4 wizards, and apprentice, and yourself all participating in the experiement it might be possible, assuiming that the gates on the panels can, in fact, be moved. I generally understood them to be fixed in location.

Pronounceable
2008-01-24, 04:42 PM
The moment room starts rotating the portals clos- no, wait...

Do gate spells, or scratch that, any other magical fixed effect move if the environment moves? Would a forcecage break the walls/floor/ceiling if the room rotates? Or would it rotate with it? What about darkness? Light? Antimagic field? Globe of invul?

Another one: What happens when an object, let's say a coin with darkness on it, used as target of a spell is destroyed? Is split into pieces and scattered? Is polymorphed into something else and no longer the original target?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-24, 04:44 PM
The moment room starts rotating the portals clos- no, wait...

Do gate spells, or scratch that, any other magical fixed effect move if the environment moves? Would a forcecage break the walls/floor/ceiling if the room rotates? Or would it rotate with it? What about darkness? Light? Antimagic field? Globe of invul?

Another one: What happens when an object, let's say a coin with darkness on it, used as target of a spell is destroyed? Is split into pieces and scattered? Is polymorphed into something else and no longer the original target?The world is constantly rotating, so I'd say no. Or else it is actually a giant disk balanced on the hand of a waitress and never moving.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-24, 04:45 PM
The world is constantly rotating, so I'd say no. Or else it is actually a giant disk balanced on the hand of a waitress and never moving.

On the back of a giant tortise...

Tobrian
2008-02-07, 03:07 PM
boring and predictable, exactly what magic should not be.
And "spells are dangerous" is just part of it. it is more spells are complicated and need some thinking to use it efficiently. That is maybe the main difference between 3 and previous editions, in D&D 2nd editon and precedents the game was supposed to be a challenge for the *players*, you had to think to use the quirks of the system , not only the magic one, (and there were many) to your advantage, in 3e it is supposed to be a challenge for the *characters*, you don't have to worry about quirks because the system don't have them (not intentionally at least), you can immediatly and almost always know what will be the possible conseguences of your future actions (and many players seems to complain when this don't happen i.e. can't have all the informations), I don't think this is realistic, desiderable (in a RPG, at least, I could like it in a pure strategy game, like chess) or even particolary fun, but that is just me.

Newsflash: (A)D&D is like chess. (A)D&D is (and has always been) a strategic/tactical game, with maps and combat grids. It is not, and never was, a storytelling game. Magic in (A)D&D has always been "rote magic"... push a button and you get the same effect every time, like a science experiment. There isn't even a die roll to cast a spell, you just do it. Spells are mechanical, with exact specifications about duration, range, radius, blablabla, and you're supposed to use them to your advantage while navigating a dungeon. That's why all D&D spellcasters apparently come with inborn range finders in their eyes. You can play a whole campaign of (A)D&D without "wasting" one thought on your character's background history, parents, quirks, personal philosophy (your get alignment instead) or even name. AD&D 2nd Ed didn't even have a proper skill system, for heaven's sake! Characters were "adventurers", NPCs were 0th level commoners. And that's where 4E seems to be going back to. *sigh*


in D&D 2nd editon and precedents the game was supposed to be a challenge for the *players*, you had to think to use the quirks of the system , not only the magic one, (and there were many) to your advantage
Hm, that wasn't my impression back when I was playing AD&D 2nd Ed, but... if you say so. I wonder if you think that improved the game? A system where you, thep layer, have to find the loopholes in the rules and basically cheat to "beat the system"? ...? :smallconfused: Weird.

Chronos
2008-02-07, 03:27 PM
AD&D 2nd Ed didn't even have a proper skill system, for heaven's sake!That's because you were supposed to just wing it. The game (especially in 2nd edition and earlier) wasn't about interacting with the rule set in the most tactically-advantageous way; it was about telling an interesting story.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-07, 03:44 PM
That doesn't seem problematic as one person at least could not do it. To keep the Gate functioning requires concentration. One cannot cast a second spell when concentrating on the first.

I suppose, if you had 4 wizards, and apprentice, and yourself all participating in the experiement it might be possible, assuiming that the gates on the panels can, in fact, be moved. I generally understood them to be fixed in location.

But where are you? When the two gates become coterminous, in the same place, what do you see when you open your eyes? On a fluff basis, I'd say that that's a way of getting into the place where Vestiges live, but quite what happens to you I've no idea.

Tormsskull
2008-02-07, 03:49 PM
Newsflash: (A)D&D is like chess. (A)D&D is (and has always been) a strategic/tactical game, with maps and combat grids. It is not, and never was, a storytelling game.


Interestingly enough, I'd never played D&D with a combat grid before 3.0. I believe D&D's predecessor (Chainmail) was a strategic/tactical game, and D&D its self was born out of the idea of there being more to the fighting/strategy than just moving minis around a board and comparing numbers.

It could be just bias, but when I read the Basic D&D or AD&D books, I got a much stronger sense that the story was first, the mechanics second, as compared to 3.x.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-07, 03:51 PM
Interestingly enough, I'd never played D&D with a combat grid before 3.0. I believe D&D's predecessor (Chainmail) was a strategic/tactical game, and D&D its self was born out of the idea of there being more to the fighting/strategy than just moving minis around a board and comparing numbers.

It could be just bias, but when I read the Basic D&D or AD&D books, I got a much stronger sense that the story was first, the mechanics second, as compared to 3.x.

That perception stems from a difference in marketing. TSR thought that explaining how the story should go superseded hard, fast mechanics. WotC, on the other hand, is of the impression that the DM is capable of making a story work without their help and instead focuses on mechanical integrity.

Dervag
2008-02-07, 04:39 PM
Yes, that would be the old rust monster. One of the designers of fourth edition has at some point covered the new one, in Dragon Magazine iirc, that, in his opinion, fixed the problem with the old one, specifically by making the item destruction wear off after time - i.e. the item "magically" regenerates, with no attempt at justifying this.He's got to be kidding. That's just stupid, not "fixing."

On a magic item, I could see it. It actually makes some sense for magic items to be enchanted so they can repair themselves over time. But for mundane bits of metal?


Re: Phantasmal Killer

I imagine this is one of the things that simply didn't need to be stated, as one can assume that the killing terror is part of the spell's mechanism, and the helm of telepathy allows the wearer to reflect the terror back upon the caster. Ordinarily, the mere act of confronting their worst fear doesn't kill someone.

The mechanical description of the spell is quite clear, even if the fluff is slightly ambiguous.Well, the point of the spell is to create the worst possible combination of your fears. Much worse than simply confronting a single thing you're afraid of would be.


But more on topic, it's possible that what's horrific to one person is actually nice for another. Compare Room 101, from 1984. For Winston Smith, the worst thing possible in the world is rats. But there are people out there who think rats are cute, and keep them as pets, and even let them do things like crawl over their face. If a wizard with a rat familiar cast the spell on Winston Smith, and he for some reason were wearing a Helm of Telepathy, one would expect the spell to just fizzle.But the killer isn't an actual image of a rat. As I see it, it's a
sort of reactive 'thing' that appears to you as the worst thing you, personally, can imagine. So if you cast the spell on Winston, it looks like a giant rat to him, but if it gets turned on you it changes to look like your worst fear, not his.


daggaz, your interpretation of Gate works better than what's in the rules, but it still has problems when you try to define what constitutes a single object. Is a brick an object, or is a brick wall an object? Is a chain an object, or only the links? How much of a connection is needed: Are two things "one object" if tied together with strong rope? With twine? With thread, or spiderweb?I'd just say that any object with a contiguous surface qualifies. A chain is an object because each link is firmly in contact with the links on other side. A cobweb is an object. For this purpose, two objects tied together are cobwebs. However, if something were trying to pull you through and you resisted by using cobweb to tie you to something, the cobweb would break.


Racism isn't necessarily a candidate for making someone horrible, its just an extremely ugly quality. I know some very nice racists. Also, you should check out Tolkien's notes for the appearance of some of his monsters...Conversely, check out the angry letters he wrote to various groups and political parties praising his works for what they saw as raising 'Nordic consciousness.'

So it's hard to pigeonhole Tolkein on how he viewed real races, as opposed to fantasy ones, in my opinion.


I'm not going to line-by-line this, since that kind of arguing always grates my nerves, so I'll summarize. Most of what you've said here boils down to, "The spells don't always work as intended and occasionally blow up in the caster's face." Personally, I don't think a player should have the potential to be penalized by using his innate abilities. I do believe that a character should have a chance for failure when using their class features, and that this chance of failure should be based off The d20 Mechanic, but I feel that actively penalizing someone for a random-chance effect--like 2e haste's system shock save--is not a good way to design a game. Certainly, some material components should be hard to come by, some spells should be difficult to cast. But this should not be represented by potential side effects or penalties, but rather by fixed, constant costs.I understand your argument. However, I would point out that only some of those spells had risks- a powerful wizard could easily cast one spell per round in several encounters without ever casting anything that might backfire. Moreover, even the risky spells could be used effectively if you were careful. Haste caused aging, sure, but not much. So it was still a good tactic in the right kind of battle- one where the risk of being killed was great enough to justify a small reduction in one's life expectancy. Likewise, Fly had a variable duration, but you could always land before the last 10*d6 minutes of the spell and eliminate the risk.

So the risks of spells you'd cast on your friend were of the kind that could be mitigated with caution, rather than of the "ha-ha you're dead!" kind, by and large.


That's because you were supposed to just wing it. The game (especially in 2nd edition and earlier) wasn't about interacting with the rule set in the most tactically-advantageous way; it was about telling an interesting story.Could it be that that is what it was for you without being what it was in some abstract general sense?

Moreover, the original versions of D&D evolved from wargames that were very much tactical in the sense that you deride Third Edition for being.


That perception stems from a difference in marketing. TSR thought that explaining how the story should go superseded hard, fast mechanics. WotC, on the other hand, is of the impression that the DM is capable of making a story work without their help and instead focuses on mechanical integrity.Conversely, TSR was of the impression that the DM was capable of making mechanics work with minimal help and of creating satisfactory mechanics on the fly in an emergency, so that what they really needed to sell people was story ideas.

The Gygaxian DM really could do that. Of course, being a Gygaxian DM is hard, and can be hard on players too, so that isn't a good solution for everyone.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-07, 04:48 PM
Conversely, TSR was of the impression that the DM was capable of making mechanics work with minimal help and of creating satisfactory mechanics on the fly in an emergency, so that what they really needed to sell people was story ideas.

The Gygaxian DM really could do that. Of course, being a Gygaxian DM is hard, and can be hard on players too, so that isn't a good solution for everyone.

And I think that's a big cause of the Edition Wars, myself: the newer editions make different assumptions about fundamentals of the game (ie: "What Is A DM Expected To Do?" and "What Are The Bounds Of Power For The Players?"), and whether this is an intended design principle shift, a side effect of having a different design team for each edition, or even corporate practices in an effort to reach a broader audience, it is still an issue. I personally have tried to compartmentalize my personal edition issues by attempting to take each edition at face value and make decisions based not upon which edition it is, but which version better fits with my philosophy of game design.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-07, 04:51 PM
The Gygaxian DM really could do that. Of course, being a Gygaxian DM is hard, and can be hard on players too, so that isn't a good solution for everyone.

He really couldn't. On-the-fly mechanics are rarely satisfactory, and "gygaxian" is more synonymous with "behind door number one: a magic crown! Behind door number two: INSTANT DEATH! Behind door number three: six giant bees guarding a pound of sugar" than it is with "compelling story".

Starbuck_II
2008-02-07, 05:33 PM
Interestingly enough, I'd never played D&D with a combat grid before 3.0. I believe D&D's predecessor (Chainmail) was a strategic/tactical game, and D&D its self was born out of the idea of there being more to the fighting/strategy than just moving minis around a board and comparing numbers.

It could be just bias, but when I read the Basic D&D or AD&D books, I got a much stronger sense that the story was first, the mechanics second, as compared to 3.x.

Yep, in 2.0 you had a combat grid. I remember because our DM used one back in the day. This was the 1st year of high school for me.

Granted, my DM didn't let Fighters specialize or anyone use proficiency any slots. So Fighters kinda sucked...
(In fact, I bet we didn't use most of the system...) I think he said it was just too much extra/unneeded.
I was a Fighter and I was new so I didn't protest about not being able to Specialize bcause I didn't at the time know they could.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-07, 05:38 PM
Behind door number two: INSTANT DEATH!

You totally have to say that with the 60's game show host Bob Barker's voice. "And behind door number two, we have...!" *drumroll* "Iiiinstaaaaaant Death!" *theme music plays* "That's our dungeon! Remember, DMs, have your trolls spayed and neutered. We'll see you next week on The Dungeon Is Right™!"

CrowSpawn
2008-02-07, 06:20 PM
Mordenkainen's Disjunction. This one can only be used at high levels, and most self-respecting high-level characters are going to be brimming over with magic items. I've seen a single casting of this stretch one standard action into two real-time hours of character bookkeeping, looking up each magic item in its source book to see if it might have a better saving throw than the character holding it. Mordenkainen's Disjunction takes all the fun out of D&D, which is why it's most extremely "broken".

I have to absolutely agree here. Mord's Disjoin is about the most un-fun game-breaking power imaginable. It does something almost no other spell does: its breaks PC equipment. How utterly frustrating for a player to save up his hard earned gold for a +5 keen longsword (or whatever) and a single spell just snatches that away.

I used this spell on my players only once, ever. They were so disappointed that they abandoned the quest they were on.

I have never allowed it in my games (for players or monsters) since. It's broken.

Chronos
2008-02-07, 06:45 PM
Could it be that that is what it was for you without being what it was in some abstract general sense?

Moreover, the original versions of D&D evolved from wargames that were very much tactical in the sense that you deride Third Edition for being.Even of the rules in the books, most of them were listed as optional. There were three completely different systems listed in the rules to decide what sorts of non-combat capabilities characters had, for instance. And a lot of things were just plain not addressed: Most monsters didn't have a Strength score listed, and none at all had Wis, Cha, Con, or Dex. Nor did any monster have saving throws. What happens when you cast a save-or-die spell on that griffon? Well, the DM can think of something to do if that happens.

LotharBot
2008-02-07, 06:47 PM
It does something almost no other spell does: its breaks PC equipment.

There are also 3 or 4 monsters that do the same. It's generally un-fun to have your equipment actually permanently destroyed in the middle of combat. Especially the equipment you've spent your last 8 sessions saving up for. You wouldn't hit a character with a spell of "you permanently lose 3 levels and it'll be 10 more sessions before you can earn them back" (though you might hit them with "... so you'll have to have restoration cast on you"), so why destroy a part of their character they've spent 3 levels working toward?

Dispel Magic can suppress the magical abilities of an item. It's a nice solution -- bad guy has a big honking sword of character whooping? Not any more; for the next 1d4 rounds it's masterwork. PC has an item the enemy is afraid of? Not for the next 1d4 rounds. But at the end of the encounter, you're not left depressed because you just lost however many thousand gold worth of loot, or that item your character worked so hard to get.

There needs to be a way to permanently destroy magical equipment -- when you kill the BBEG and find he had a wicked nasty evil item of vileness, you don't exactly want to sell it to the next BBEG. But it shouldn't be combat-relevant; you shouldn't be able to fry someone's equipment while they're holding it.

Fizban
2008-02-07, 11:45 PM
And that's where just plain Disjunction comes in. It's the same, except lower level (7th, 8th?), targets only one thing (one item, I'm not sure if you can target a whole creature or just one spell though), and costs a few hundred xp. Spell Compendium. Also, Antimagic Ray to suppress all the spells on one person, at around the same level. Also in the Spell Compendium, I think.

Bag_of_Holding
2008-02-08, 12:42 AM
According to Deities and Demigods, deities with divine ranks equal to or greater than 16 automatically maximises their dice rolls. Does it mean if a greater deity casts Teleport, he'll end up with infinite mishaps?

Fax Celestis
2008-02-08, 12:56 AM
According to Deities and Demigods, deities with divine ranks equal to or greater than 16 automatically maximises their dice rolls. Does it mean if a greater deity casts Teleport, he'll end up with infinite mishaps?

That is the funniest thing I've read all day. Congratulations. You owe me a monitor. This one is covered in cherry limeade.

Da Beast
2008-02-08, 01:03 AM
boring and predictable, exactly what magic should not be.
IMHO, of course
And "spells are dangerous" is just part of it. it is more spells are complicated and need some thinking to use it efficiently. That is maybe the main difference between 3 and previous editions, in D&D 2nd editon and precedents the game was supposed to be a challenge for the *players*, you had to think to use the quirks of the system , not only the magic one, (and there were many) to your advantage, in 3e it is supposed to be a challenge for the *characters*, you don't have to worry about quirks because the system don't have them (not intentionally at least), you can immediatly and almost always know what will be the possible conseguences of your future actions (and many players seems to complain when this don't happen i.e. can't have all the informations), I don't think this is realistic, desiderable (in a RPG, at least, I could like it in a pure strategy game, like chess) or even particolary fun, but that is just me.


maybe they are not magic system (but if they aren't what is?), but they influence how it works. Just to make one example a system where you can store away spells just spending gold and xps (wands and scrolls) it is, or at least works, very differently from one where you had to search for cloud's whispers and dragon's songs to do the same. You can like more one over the other, but they are different.

but I don't particolary like these arguments, too that is why avoided to elaborate the first time, the risk of argument escalation it is too high. :smallbiggrin:


NOTE: I'm not saying the 2nd edition system is perfect, I agree, for example that the system shock for haste was a little harsh (understatement) I'm just sayng that the no "negative permanent conseguences at all" of 3e is just dull and if I had to choose between dull and harsh I take harsh (In a game, at least. In real life I'd take dull every day of the week, thank you. :) )

you know, just the other day I was making a wizard when I thought to myself, "gee, this would be a lot more fun with a mechanic that would randomly kill my character for using my class abilities." Thank you for turning me on to this awesome system.

Fiery Diamond
2008-02-08, 01:10 AM
The first and third posts on this page are absolutely hilarious. And frankly, I concur with the sentiments of the third poster on this page. I wouldn't want to randomly die for using my class abilities either.

-Fiery Diamond

Chronos
2008-02-08, 01:35 AM
According to Deities and Demigods, deities with divine ranks equal to or greater than 16 automatically maximises their dice rolls. Does it mean if a greater deity casts Teleport, he'll end up with infinite mishaps?That's almost as funny as the notion of an Empowered Reincarnate bringing someone back as a <Error: Subscript out of range>.

Which doesn't actually work that way, but it'd be cool if it did.

averagejoe
2008-02-08, 02:39 AM
you know, just the other day I was making a wizard when I thought to myself, "gee, this would be a lot more fun with a mechanic that would randomly kill my character for using my class abilities." Thank you for turning me on to this awesome system.

There should be a barbarian mechanic that gives them a chance to spontaneously combust when they go into a rage. Or a rogue mechanic that gives them a chance to sneak attack themselves on accident. (You know, because they're so sneaky that not even they know about their own movements/manuvers.)

While I tend to think mechanically solid rules are preferable to fluff-solid rules (though there's no reason you have to pick just one,) I think a problem with a lot of the spells is they don't work how they intuitively should. Beyond things like Gates and Magic Jars, there's some spells that just plain confound and confuse new players. For example, stoneskin seems like it should do more than simply grant damage reduction, but it doesn't. To most players this doesn't even come up as a problem, but to some new players it does. I mean, your skin is stone, harder than many weapons. Shouldn't that give you some sort of unarmed damage bonus? Do your fists count as weapons? Do you sink in water? To an experienced player the answers to these questions are obvious, but when first picking up a spell most people grasp what it does conceptually first, at least in my experience. Before even reading the description, or worse, things like "target" or "effect" (which have very specific meanings covered elswhere in the book) the player thinks, "This spell turns my character's skin to stone. Cool." (or uncool, whatever the case may be.)

Those are just my two bits. As to the original topic, the XPH spell Mind Seed has always kind of bugged me. It notes that the personalities are free to diverge over time, which is presumably the only thing preventing a powerful psionic from mind seeding himself into everyone in order to create an unstoppable army. However, exactly how divergent the personality is anyone's guess. Depending, this is either extraordinarily abusable or almost useless, and has no rules describing it other than a short paragraph.

Rutee
2008-02-08, 02:48 AM
you know, just the other day I was making a wizard when I thought to myself, "gee, this would be a lot more fun with a mechanic that would randomly kill my character for using my class abilities." Thank you for turning me on to this awesome system.

You'd love Traveller. You can die during character gen!

horseboy
2008-02-08, 02:57 AM
You'd love Traveller. You can die during character gen!
Oh yeah, nothing like following 4 terms in a career, actually get skill synergies out of random rolls, only to die on your 16th year. :smallamused:
Oddly that never bothered me as much as how you never got any better while in play.

But that wasn't the worst of it! After everyone got their characters rolled up, after you started play. You go on your first jump, and the pilot rolls snake eyes. TPK from one single roll. :smallfurious:

Da Beast
2008-02-08, 03:34 AM
You'd love Traveller. You can die during character gen!

I honestly want to try Traveler for that reason. I can't imagine I'd play it a lot, I just want to be able to say that I've played the game where you can die during character creation.

Sebastian
2008-02-08, 03:44 AM
you know, just the other day I was making a wizard when I thought to myself, "gee, this would be a lot more fun with a mechanic that would randomly kill my character for using my class abilities." Thank you for turning me on to this awesome system.

Do you actually read my post? expecially this part


I'm not saying the 2nd edition system is perfect, I agree, for example that the system shock for haste was a little harsh (understatement) I'm just sayng that the no "negative permanent conseguences at all" of 3e is just dull.

Yes, being randomly killed casting a spell is a little too much, (for some spells at least, some spells should be dangerous - and nobody forces you to cast the dangerous spells anyway, it is a choice), but in 3rd they pushed safe spellcasting too much, they put a frigging automatic parachute into the fly spells, for gawd's sake).

And if you don't want get randomly killed using your class abilities never play a fighter-type, you can get killed in combat, you know? And by random rolls of dice, too.

Patashu
2008-02-08, 05:43 AM
There are also 3 or 4 monsters that do the same. It's generally un-fun to have your equipment actually permanently destroyed in the middle of combat. Especially the equipment you've spent your last 8 sessions saving up for. You wouldn't hit a character with a spell of "you permanently lose 3 levels and it'll be 10 more sessions before you can earn them back" (though you might hit them with "... so you'll have to have restoration cast on you"), so why destroy a part of their character they've spent 3 levels working toward?

Dispel Magic can suppress the magical abilities of an item. It's a nice solution -- bad guy has a big honking sword of character whooping? Not any more; for the next 1d4 rounds it's masterwork. PC has an item the enemy is afraid of? Not for the next 1d4 rounds. But at the end of the encounter, you're not left depressed because you just lost however many thousand gold worth of loot, or that item your character worked so hard to get.

There needs to be a way to permanently destroy magical equipment -- when you kill the BBEG and find he had a wicked nasty evil item of vileness, you don't exactly want to sell it to the next BBEG. But it shouldn't be combat-relevant; you shouldn't be able to fry someone's equipment while they're holding it.

If you want M's Disjunction to be a get-rid-of-this-evil-magical-item spell, then just extend casting time to 10 minutes, if not hours. That way using it mid-fight is out of the question but it's there if you really need to get rid of a magical item.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-08, 06:06 AM
I have to absolutely agree here. Mord's Disjoin is about the most un-fun game-breaking power imaginable. It does something almost no other spell does: its breaks PC equipment. How utterly frustrating for a player to save up his hard earned gold for a +5 keen longsword (or whatever) and a single spell just snatches that away.

I used this spell on my players only once, ever. They were so disappointed that they abandoned the quest they were on.

I have never allowed it in my games (for players or monsters) since. It's broken.

I see people complaining about disjunction all the time, and to me this speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the D&D system.

The PC should always have WBL. If you get hit with a disjunction, well the next room has a nice chest with a few scrolls of gate. Gate in a solar or 2 and get some free wishes with which to wish up some nice magic equipment.

I use disjunction all the time as both a player and a DM and don't have any problems with it.

------------
Same thing with Resurrection ad death. Theses things aren't supposed to be big deals after about level 10. At level 15+ I expect any given PC to die once every 3 equal level fights. Save-Or-Die effects are fully in play. If you die well the cleric True Res's you the next morning. Get a TPK? Well you should have set up a trust fund with some retired high level cleric where he scryes on you every week or so and if your dead he True Res's you.

Khanderas
2008-02-08, 07:42 AM
I see people complaining about disjunction all the time, and to me this speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the D&D system.

The PC should always have WBL. If you get hit with a disjunction, well the next room has a nice chest with a few scrolls of gate. Gate in a solar or 2 and get some free wishes with which to wish up some nice magic equipment.

I use disjunction all the time as both a player and a DM and don't have any problems with it.

Emperor of marshmallows or not, I do not agree.
A PC dies, and the next room has a scroll of true ressurrection. The legendary (but not artifact) sword of kabloomie, pried from the kingpriest of the fell legions of Gruumsh goes poof and you find another one just as good or better in the next chest ?
Your game is your game, and do with it as you wish, but this I won't add to my list of homebrew rules.

Sure it does make sense with disjunction (One BBEG vs 4-5 heroes = death, Disjunction lets you loot less, but you have a lot bigger chance to be victorious). But I still think it is better to treat it as magical items are supressed for X minutes instead, with a baneful variant for irredeemable evil items. Kinda like how poly was changed to "normal" poly and baneful poly.
Baneful disjunction would take a ritual with the target of an unattended item, castingtime 10 min at the least, no quicken metamagic. Perhaps the items casterlevel x 10 min (so powerful items would take more time to disjoin safely).

Roderick_BR
2008-02-08, 08:14 AM
Racism isn't necessarily a candidate for making someone horrible, its just an extremely ugly quality. I know some very nice racists. Also, you should check out Tolkien's notes for the appearance of some of his monsters...



As a side note, I happen to think Polymorph Any Object is one of the more horrible spells in DnD, on an evilness scale. I mean, if evilness is creating suffering in others for selfish reasons, no good reasons, uncaring reasons, ect ect... I mean, turning a pebble into a human, for just 20 minutes? Can you imagine the pain that person must go through, knowing his fate? Or being turned into some sort of little animal, knowing that soon you'll forget that you were ever human? Oh, boy, and thats not even including the sick, imaginative stuff you can turn others into.

Oh, and in order to stay on subject, I somehow doubt that "class" refers to "Monstrous humanoid" or any of those. And whenever I've encountered it's usage, anything thats "half-n-half" is both. A dryad being turned into a tree shouldn't count against it's duration, and neither should turning a dryad into a human. Or another fey, even (You don't say, "it can't be permanent, because she's also half-tree" when someone turns a dryad into a nymph)
Wizard of OZ anyone? More especifically, the "errata" that the author tried to make to not scare kids ("Don't worry kids, people doesn't die in that world", "so they stay changed into things forever?!")

Khanderas
2008-02-08, 08:50 AM
Wizard of OZ anyone? More especifically, the "errata" that the author tried to make to not scare kids ("Don't worry kids, people doesn't die in that world", "so they stay changed into things forever?!")
I'm a little teapot, short and stout
This is my handle this is my spout.
When I get all steamed up hear me shout,
OMYGOD PLEASE BREAK ME AND DELIVER ME FROM THIS HELL AS AN INANIMATE TEAPOT !!!!:smallbiggrin:

Nebo_
2008-02-08, 09:19 AM
I see people complaining about disjunction all the time, and to me this speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the D&D system.

The PC should always have WBL. If you get hit with a disjunction, well the next room has a nice chest with a few scrolls of gate. Gate in a solar or 2 and get some free wishes with which to wish up some nice magic equipment.

I use disjunction all the time as both a player and a DM and don't have any problems with it.

------------
Same thing with Resurrection ad death. Theses things aren't supposed to be big deals after about level 10. At level 15+ I expect any given PC to die once every 3 equal level fights. Save-Or-Die effects are fully in play. If you die well the cleric True Res's you the next morning. Get a TPK? Well you should have set up a trust fund with some retired high level cleric where he scryes on you every week or so and if your dead he True Res's you.


I want to scream "You're doing it wrong!" but if you're having fun like that then I won't try to stop you. I think that kind of play ruins suspension of disbelief, which to me, is one of the most important factors in making D&D fun.

Chronos
2008-02-08, 12:14 PM
For example, stoneskin seems like it should do more than simply grant damage reduction, but it doesn't.That one never bothered me too much, but I'm continually tripped up by the way they handled magical darkness in 3rd edition. In 2nd, it was simple: Darkness spells produced darkness. Now, we've got this "shadowy illumination" business, which somehow blocks Darkvision, but doesn't completely block ordinary human vision.

And I only just recently learned that apparently, there's nothing in the rules that stops a spellcaster from casting spells while inside an antimagic field.

Draz74
2008-02-08, 12:33 PM
And I only just recently learned that apparently, there's nothing in the rules that stops a spellcaster from casting spells while inside an antimagic field.

Well, the spell does say it "prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines."

I guess you could argue about the definition of "functioning." But I'd say casting the spells in the first place is covered. Even if you do argue that, I think Rules Compendium has a whole column on antimagic rules, which probably clears up the issue nicely.

horseboy
2008-02-08, 01:03 PM
I honestly want to try Traveler for that reason. I can't imagine I'd play it a lot, I just want to be able to say that I've played the game where you can die during character creation.
Traveler! Come for the character death! Stay for the amazing verisimilitude!

:smallwink:

Megafly
2008-02-08, 03:32 PM
You'd love Traveller. You can die during character gen!

In Cyberpunk you didn't die in generation, but you could slip into cyber-psychosis and have your character turn into an NPC if you rolled too many lost and replaced limbs each with their commensurate empathy loss.

kirbsys
2008-02-08, 03:46 PM
All I have to say is that DMs should use their common sense. Sure the rules may say that a level 20 bard could walk up to Sauron and make him indifferent without a roll, but really what DM would let him? The rules should get rid of these problems, but most likely, even the best set of rules won't eliminate the occasional grey area, and thats why we have a DM (that and to hide the treasure for us :smallbiggrin: ).

Curmudgeon
2008-02-08, 06:18 PM
The PC should always have WBL. If you get hit with a disjunction, well the next room has a nice chest with a few scrolls of gate. Gate in a solar or 2 and get some free wishes with which to wish up some nice magic equipment. This meta-gaming mechanic just sets my teeth on edge. The way I like to play D&D I expect characters who invest heavily in Hide, Move Silently, and (especially) Sleight of Hand to have more wealth-gaining opportunities than characters who don't. Treating WBL as a fixed expectation removes a major character differentiator. Having Paladins just stumbling over diamonds in the dirt, or Rogues working hard to steal yet finding that their pouches always develop holes, isn't anything that I'd put up with, any more than I'd stand for a DM who insists that treasure be portioned out as they intend rather than via in-game roleplaying.

WBL is a guideline, not an invariant rule. If you automatically give out more treasure when players get low on wealth, that meta-game mechanic is ridiculously easy to exploit. One easy example: spend tons of money on scrolls or expensive magic components, and use them up so that you're über-buffed and able to handle encounters with much more magic than you'd otherwise have available. Presto: easy win, and you'll be guaranteed to find treasure to replace all the resources you used up. And archers can buy and use up +5 arrows, knowing that even though they're destroyed on impact the treasure is going to include either a full replacement set or the gp to buy them.

:annoyed:

Chronos
2008-02-08, 06:29 PM
Having Paladins just stumbling over diamonds in the dirt, or Rogues working hard to steal yet finding that their pouches always develop holes, isn't anything that I'd put up with, any more than I'd stand for a DM who insists that treasure be portioned out as they intend rather than via in-game roleplaying.Actually, WBL works for rogues, too. It just works differently for them than it does for most characters. Most characters do things to gain experience, and also get loot as a side effect of that. So a character's loot increases monotonically with experience. Rogues, though, do things to gain loot, and get experience as a side effect.

To put it another way: There is a ten foot by ten foot room, with an orc guarding a treasure chest. The barbarian kicks down the door, kills the orc, and smashes open the chest. The barbarian therefore gets experience for defeating the orc, and gold (or whatever) from the chest. The rogue, meanwhile, slips through the door when nobody's looking, sneaks past the orc, and picks the lock on the chest. The rogue therefore gets the gold from the chest, and by virtue of sneaking past the guard orc, has effectively defeated the orc. So the rogue gains both the same gold and the same XP as the barbarian.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-08, 08:14 PM
In Cyberpunk you didn't die in generation, but you could slip into cyber-psychosis and have your character turn into an NPC if you rolled too many lost and replaced limbs each with their commensurate empathy loss.

Yeah, and Vampire can turn your character into an NPC monster if you kill too many people and lose your humanity, and moreover Call of Ctulhu can turn your character into a raving madman for looking at ancient hieroglyphics, and even worse, Paranoia can brand, kill, then demote your character and vaporize his entire family for reading the rules section of the Paranoia manual.

That's because you're not supposed to do all that. That's because epic heroism is a genre, that D&D belongs to and most other RPGs by design do not.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-08, 08:29 PM
And I expect level 20 wizard to call up Solars and abuse wish for free items. Both that and the Rogue stealing stuff are exactly equal except in terms of scale.

As for finding diamonds on the ground, you don't. Need a true res and the cleric is out? The Wizard gates in a Solar and gets a wish for 10,000 GP worth of diamonds

There is nothing metagamey about it at all. What stops the characters from getting to rich? Well if you keep gating in Solars for wishes 1 right after the other Pelor gets mad that you are taking his generals for trivial reasons. It's getting annoying when the generals keep popping in and out of planning sessions.

Ascension
2008-02-08, 09:32 PM
That sort of high magic expectation is why I imagine I'll never purposefully get involved in an upper-level campaign. When summoning angelic beings to ask them for stuff on a regular basis becomes par for the course the game just seems to start getting ridiculous.

In fact, the whole "revolving door of death" thing ticks me off, but I'll suppress the urge to rant since it would just take us further off topic.

Let me just say that if my party ever tries to resurrect my character, he's turning them down.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-08, 09:37 PM
But D&D is high magic. You can't have low magic D&D that doesn't stretch disbelief to the breaking point (well unless you do a "your the first people to find magic" game.).

You can make fun, interesting, playable high magic settings that are believable but if you are using the RAW spells then you really can't have believable low magic.

Collin152
2008-02-08, 09:59 PM
That's almost as funny as the notion of an Empowered Reincarnate bringing someone back as a <Error: Subscript out of range>.

Which doesn't actually work that way, but it'd be cool if it did.

Empowered Reincarnate?
Mmmm, I smell psuedonatural creatures...

averagejoe
2008-02-08, 10:08 PM
That one never bothered me too much, but I'm continually tripped up by the way they handled magical darkness in 3rd edition. In 2nd, it was simple: Darkness spells produced darkness. Now, we've got this "shadowy illumination" business, which somehow blocks Darkvision, but doesn't completely block ordinary human vision.

It's never really bothered me either, but I've had new players stumble over it. "Because of the rules" is kind of a crappy answer to, "Wait, why can't this spell do what it logically should be able to do as per the description," and a hastle I'd rather not have to deal with. It's a minor thing, and I don't mean to pick on stoneskin exclusively, but it seems like this is a stumbling block whenever I try to introduce a new character to the game.

Thanatos 51-50
2008-02-08, 10:35 PM
Even of the rules in the books, most of them were listed as optional. There were three completely different systems listed in the rules to decide what sorts of non-combat capabilities characters had, for instance. And a lot of things were just plain not addressed: Most monsters didn't have a Strength score listed, and none at all had Wis, Cha, Con, or Dex. Nor did any monster have saving throws. What happens when you cast a save-or-die spell on that griffon? Well, the DM can think of something to do if that happens.

And INT scores were barely listed at all in some AD&D books, instead, you got categories:

Animal
Below Average
Average
Above Average
Sub-Genius
Genius
Super-Genius

horseboy
2008-02-09, 12:37 AM
And INT scores were barely listed at all in some AD&D books, instead, you got categories:

Animal
Below Average
Average
Above Average
Sub-Genius
Genius
Super-Genius
Yeah, but the (usually) 3 range for those were in the front of the book. (and you missed a few categories there) :smallwink:

Aquillion
2008-02-09, 02:27 AM
According to Deities and Demigods, deities with divine ranks equal to or greater than 16 automatically maximises their dice rolls. Does it mean if a greater deity casts Teleport, he'll end up with infinite mishaps?Actually, the rules seem contradictory and nonsensical:


Always Maximize Roll

Greater deities (rank 16-20) automatically get the best result possible on any check, saving throw, attack roll, or damage roll. Calculate success, failure, or other effects accordingly. When a greater deity makes a check, attack, or save assume a 20 was rolled and calculate success or failure from there. A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit. This quality means that greater deities never need the Maximize Spell feat, because their spells have maximum effect already.The contradiction between the two bolded parts should be obvious, given Bag_of_Holding's post.

(Actually, now that I look at it... I don't think the roll for a mishap with teleport counts as a "check", and it certainly isn't any of the others. Although if every roll counted as a check, then everyone they reincarnated would come back as an elf, since that's what you get if you roll a 20... still a funny post, though. Also note that as written, the rules may be lying about greater deities not needing the maximize spell feat, since that feat maximizes more than just checks, saving throws, attack rolls, and damage rolls... unless you take that line to mean that their spells are also maximized. For example, as written the greater deity ability wouldn't maximize Time Stop unless you make that assumption.)


you know, just the other day I was making a wizard when I thought to myself, "gee, this would be a lot more fun with a mechanic that would randomly kill my character for using my class abilities." Thank you for turning me on to this awesome system.It actually works better than it sounds. Both Mage and Ars Magica (systems designed for the players to play absurdly powerful spellcasters) use something like that... you can do all sorts of things with magic and cast it all day with only a few restrictions, but when you screw up or roll very badly there's a chance that you'll accumulate some paradox / twilight points. If you get above a certain number, *pop*, you're gone, and nothing can save you or bring you back.

The practical effect is that it keeps people from using magic for absolutely everything... particularly in Ars Magica, say, it means that wizards are more likely to leave things that can be handled by skills, diplomacy, or fighting to companions and grogs rather than run the risk of a magical mishap... but they still get to be the most powerful people around by far when they put their mind to it.

In other words, it leads to a system where people use magic the way you'd expect it to be used, or at least how it's shown in most fantasy, instead of sleeping in their magical folding tent every night the way you end up with in D&D. It gives players more respect for it.

Oh, and to get back on topic...

While it isn't technically a spell, probably one of the most mechanically broken (as in terribly-described, not overpowered) abilities their is is the psionic Metaconcert (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metaconcert.htm) power. Go read it, I dare you, then answer these questions:

What is the manifester level of powers manifested by the mental entity it creates? Keep in mind that this is even more important for psionics than caster level is for spells; in psionics, manifester level determines how many power points you can spend per round, and thus how much you can spend to power-up your spells. It is not possible to manifest powers without knowing your manifester level, and therefore it's impossible to use Metaconcert without houseruling. But there are other problems, too.

Can the participants act independently of the mental entity? Can they manifest powers on their own? What does it mean by "as a group, they can move at a speed of 10 feet?" Whose movements are restricted to 10 feet? Everyone's? Just the conductor? If nobody's movements are restricted individually, how on earth can we restrict the group's movement mechanically? It says "if a participant moves out of the 20-foot-radius area (whether willingly or involuntarily)", so presumably they can move on their own, but how, and how far?

Can the conductor take actions beyond controlling the mental entity? (They must be able to, for the group to be able to move 10 feet a round.) Can they manifest their own powers separately from the mental entity? Do they have to take actions to direct the entity?

It gets worse. The rules state that "Likewise, each individual provides a cumulative +1 bonus when the entity makes its own saving throws in response to powers or psi-like abilities." A +1 bonus to what saving throws? Whose saves does it use? Are those plusses the only things it adds to its saving throws? How can the entity be subjected to those saving throws--how do you go about attacking it? Does it exist at a specific location? Does it have a physical form that opponents can target with powers and psi-like abilities? If so, can it be attacked in other ways, too? What if it's subjected to spells or saves from other things? What happens when it fails a save? What if you start getting into powers that ask for ability checks from it, or ones that try to change its location or manipulate its body or do one of all sorts of other things that are undefined by the power description? What if it takes damage?

Oh, you think it can't take damage? Too bad! The rules say "If the psionic entity takes ability damage from a psionic attack the total is divided among all the members as determined by the conductor." Like most of the things in that power's description, that makes things worse, not better, since it tells you what happens under a few very specific, rare circumstances while leaving a massive, implicit hole. What happens if it takes ability damage from a non-psionic source? What if it takes other forms of damage? What if it's subject to other effects or enchantments?

What is the mental entity? Can it move, or fly? Where is it? More specifically, where are the ranges for its powers calculated from? If it doesn't have a physical manifestation or location of its own, are they calculated from the conductor? If it does have a manifestation or location, how far can others interact with it, and how can it interact with others? Can it pass through solid objects? Is it visible?

I could keep going, but you get the idea. Metaconcert's description is one of the most horribly-written things ever written for D&D, and that's saying a lot. It provides stupidly detailed rules for ridiculously unlikely or unimportant circumstances (gee, I sure am glad they gave me rules for who pays that 1-8 xp if the group entity manifests a power whose xp cost can't be divided evenly!), while leaving out basic details of what the power actually does or how it functions mechanically.

Note that there also broken-overpowered things you can do with Metaconcert, or at least one broken-overpowered thing, even given how poorly it's described: Assuming you resolve the ML issue in a way that lets it manifest powers at all, you can start a metaconcert with an unconsious enemy or nine -- since unconsious targets are automatically considered willing -- and then manifest powers that cost xp, making each of them pay a share. You could easily capture nine psionic opponents and end up paying only 1/10th xp cost on all your powers in this fashion. If you want, you can also manifest Mind Seed on them to make them into your mental clones, so they'll be more likely to be willing and will have powers they can use... even better, after making them your psionic mental clones use Expanded Knowledge and Psychic Reformation to have them learn every single power while splitting the xp costs 10 ways, then have the combined entity use Psychic Chirurgery, which you learn yourself (with Expanded Knowledge if necessary), to teach all the powers to you. Dominate them if you have to, though it might not be necessary if you're good at dealing with yourself.

Chronos
2008-02-09, 03:44 PM
Oh, and to get back on topic...

While it isn't technically a spell...Hey, no problem. I only specified "spells" in particular since I didn't want the title line to get long, but powers (or magic items, or mundane maneuvers, or whatever) are also fair game for this thread.

And, yes, that power is a horrid mess. The lack of specification of manifester level is especially egregious, when you consider that the intended purpose of the power was probably to create a thing with extra-high manifester level. It sounds like someone on the design team said something like "Hey, let's have a power that lets multiple psions add their MLs together!", and someone else said "Yeah, but what if they get ability drained; who takes the drain?", and someone else said "And what about XP costs?", and so on, and when they finally got down to writing it up, they were so busy with all of the special cases that they forgot the reason they created the power in the first place.

kjones
2008-02-09, 10:30 PM
Hey, if maneuvers are fair game, I'll go ahead and toss Iron Heart Surge from the Tome of Battle into the mix. I'm sure you know how it can be used to negate gravity and stuff... I just don't understand how, when specific definitions for the sorts of things this maneuver should be used against exist, they would go and make up vague and ambiguous ones.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-10, 05:20 AM
boring and predictable, exactly what magic should not be.

Oh I absolutely agree, but I'd much rather have a system that was boring and predictable than a system that's boring and unpredictable.

If you've got an RPG magic system like - say - Unknown Armies, where doing magic involves hacking bits out of your flesh or surrendering to chaos by doing seventy down a busy highway with your eyes closed, and the effects you get are commensurate with the risks you take then that's brilliant.

On the other hand, if casting magic is basically just about utility or direct damage effects, I'd rather not have it blow up in my face just because the guy who designed the spell felt like throwing in something kooky.

Magic which is dangerous and unpredictable should be about power and desire and blood and madness. It shouldn't be about fireballs. If a magic user is basically going to be an artillery piece, they should behave like a well maintained, well operated artillery piece.

Tobrian
2008-03-06, 08:01 PM
I couldn't have said it better. Thanks for summing up what I've always felt but couldn't snappily put in words.

(I would probably have rambled on for two pages, too.)

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-06, 10:20 PM
Thanks for necroing a thread that's over a month old.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-06, 10:54 PM
While it is alive again...

Gate: See Stargate SG1 for some explanations. Primary explanation is that you don't go THROUGH until your whole body has entered. In the case of the wrong way transport, the fighter reaching through doesn't come through the other side until his whole body enters through the back. At that point going through the front takes both to the appropriate destination point.

Phantasmal killer: The phantasmal creature doesn't form unless the guy fails his save. If he makes his save, he realizes what is going on, grabs the CASTER'S dark fears, then projects those thoughts for the spell to produce the caster's worst fear instead of the victim's.

Blanks
2008-03-07, 07:53 AM
Well if you keep gating in Solars for wishes 1 right after the other Pelor gets mad that you are taking his generals for trivial reasons. It's getting annoying when the generals keep popping in and out of planning sessions.

Damn i can envision this!

Pelor: So lets get this meeting started...
Solar1: sorry gotta go.
Pelor: Oh well, as i said...
Solar2: Sorry me too.
Pelor: what?, hmm anyways the rest of us lets get started.
Solar3: What do we do about the devils inva *poof*
Pelor: Now where did he go? Come back!
Solar1: Im back, they just wanted a wish. Where were we?
Pelor: we havent even gotten started...
Solar1: whoops, gotta go again
Pelor: ...
Solar4: Now that we are taking a break I need to use the bathroom
Pelor: ... ...
Solar2: There we go, all done. Is the meeting finished?
Solar2: *poof*
Pelor: THATS IT! NO MORE SUMMONING SOLARS!

*giggles*

/sry for derailing the thread and aiding in thread necromancy :)