PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 Broken Spells



Lord Mancow
2008-10-10, 05:29 PM
I think I may just be new to the concept of Batman wizards and other similar stuff but what, in 3.5e, are the broken spells that can lead to the redundancy of fighter types and even skill monkeys?
Polymorph is no problem for me because I can just use Rich's polymorph fix.

Thank you Playground.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-10, 05:33 PM
Anything that has no save attached to it, frankly. SR is beatable with assay spell resistance or similar; touch attacks are ridiculously easy to make.

mostlyharmful
2008-10-10, 05:34 PM
Contingency, Polymorph line spells (beyound just the one, you'll have to be aware of all shapechanging magic), celerity, foresight, timestop, gate, wish, Mindblank, Contact Other Plane, Shivering touch, Grease, Sleep, Glitterdust, Phantom Steed....... on and on....

The real problem with batman is that it's the rational end point of applying intelligence to spell selection, if magic is powerful enough to stand side by side with muscle-based melee then it's got to pack a bit of umph. Then the link to Int means wizard casters have an in character rational to be as efficient and effective as possible. reallity warping combineded with brains is not a good recipie for a balanced game.

Saph
2008-10-10, 05:37 PM
There's no right answer to that question, because everyone has a different definition of what counts as 'broken'. Some GMs think that practically every PHB spell is broken, and will ban even stuff like Knock on the grounds that only a Rogue should be allowed to open locks, or ban Teleport because they don't want the PCs to be able to travel fast.

Personally, I think it's important to draw a line between powerful spells and broken ones. Spells like Glitterdust or Grease are very powerful, but I don't think they're broken, because you can still have normal and perfectly fun combats with both sides using them. It takes a lot for me to label a spell as broken, and even then I'm often willing to allow it with restrictions.

So, my list of broken spells (in core) would be:

- Alter Self (although only if it's really abused)
- Polymorph
- Shapechange
- Gate
- Time Stop

. . . and that's it. I'd ban those 4 (maybe 5) but no others.

Outside of core, I'd expand the list to include:

- Ray of Stupidity
- Shivering Touch
- Celerity/Greater Celerity (Lesser is okay)
- Venomfire

Maybe a few more, but not many.

I think the term 'broken' gets tossed around too casually. Powerful and broken are different things. I've played in a few games where the players and DM were quick to label anything effective that they weren't familiar with as 'broken', and it got kind of frustrating after a while.

- Saph

Keld Denar
2008-10-10, 05:38 PM
Well, spells that replace skill monkeys are spells that duplicate the results of a skill check. Such spells as Knock, Spider Climb, Invisibility, and even Dominate Person take the role of Open Locks, Climb, Hide, and Diplomacy/Bluff. Add to that powerful divination that discern the location and intent of foes and other dangers, and a sufficently prepared wizard COULD perform nearly all of the roles of such a character. Granted, the wizard might be slowed by the fact that spells are a limited resource and skill checks are not, but then again, spells tend to be more powerful/absolute than the skills they replace.

As far as fighters....any number of spells that utterly cripple a foe to the point where even a non-combatant wizard or handy conjoured creature can finish those foes off. You can even skip the finishing off step around mid levels, because the spells even do that for you. Why put yourself in danger (not to mention getting terribly messy) by going toe to toe, when you can cripple/slay your foe from afar as early as level 1!

xPANCAKEx
2008-10-10, 05:39 PM
how many of these are broken pre-metamagic feats?

Gorbash
2008-10-10, 05:41 PM
All of them. You don't need to metamagic Time Stop, Polymorph line in order for them to be broken...


The real problem with batman is that it's the rational end point of applying intelligence to spell selection, if magic is powerful enough to stand side by side with muscle-based melee then it's got to pack a bit of umph. Then the link to Int means wizard casters have an in character rational to be as efficient and effective as possible. reallity warping combineded with brains is not a good recipie for a balanced game.

QFT. You might even want to take this further and say that playing Batman is essentially RPing a high INT character, since it's the only way you can do it.

Temp.
2008-10-10, 05:48 PM
I don't like labelling any spells as broken beyond Gate and the ones that grant extra actions.
Polymorph is a swell buff for anyone, most save-or-lose spells leave the baddies up and fighting (even if they are consderably weakened) and most skill-replacements are wastes of spell slots when a Rogue's around to do the jobs without resource expenditure.

So I'd drop the Spell Matrices, Timestop, Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability, Celerity, Contingency, Arcane Spellsurge and that sort of thing, but leave most of the other commonly-cited 'broken' spells.

Note that this is coming from a potentially skewed viewpoint--I haven't seen a character without casting in some form for a very long time; casters, gishes and ToB-ers are the basis of my experience and statements.

mostlyharmful
2008-10-10, 05:48 PM
You might even want to take this further and say that playing Batman is essentially RPing a high INT character, since it's the only way you can do it.

I don't think that is further. I think playing a Wizard that doesn't maximize their efficiency requires an overpoweringly strong roleplay reason.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-10, 06:13 PM
Outside of core, I'd expand the list to include:

- Ray of Stupidity
- Shivering Touch
- Celerity/Greater Celerity (Lesser is okay)
- Venomfire

- Saph

Is wraithstrike in the powerful or broken category?

Saph
2008-10-10, 06:20 PM
Is wraithstrike in the powerful or broken category?

It's an unusually specialised spell, so it generally only comes up if someone's playing a wizard or sorcerer gish, which is rare enough that I don't worry much about it.

I'd probably allow it, with the stipulation that the caster has to use one hand to cast the spell (so no double-handed Power Attack).

- Saph

Gorbash
2008-10-10, 06:21 PM
Not really, since it's personal range. Useful only with Polymorph (which really doesn't need any boosting).

Thane of Fife
2008-10-10, 06:32 PM
I don't think that is further. I think playing a Wizard that doesn't maximize their efficiency requires an overpoweringly strong roleplay reason.

I disagree somewhat. A high Int character might be able to identify the best spells, but without a high Wisdom, he could easily panic during battle or simply worry too much to prepare them:

"Oh, I know Grease is quite powerful, maybe I should prepare that.... But what if they get in anyway? I need Mage Armor! It's just too important!"

Or perhaps:

"Oh gods, that orc's almost on top of me! Magic Missile!"

Saph
2008-10-10, 06:40 PM
I disagree somewhat. A high Int character might be able to identify the best spells, but without a high Wisdom, he could easily panic during battle or simply worry too much to prepare them.

It's a moot point in my experience anyway. In an actual adventure (as opposed to a message board duel) you typically don't know what you're going to be facing when you pick your spells. So even when players pick spells to the best of their ability (as my group does) they frequently don't have the ideal spell for the situation.

- Saph

Gorbash
2008-10-10, 06:42 PM
"Oh, I know Grease is quite powerful, maybe I should prepare that.... But what if they get in anyway? I need Mage Armor! It's just too important!"

Or perhaps:

"Oh gods, that orc's almost on top of me! Magic Missile!"

Although he will prepare spells without being threatened, so he will always have nifty spells in handy. Not to mention every decent Wizard will have Mage Armor on himself hours before combat.

Prometheus
2008-10-10, 06:57 PM
Most people are inclined to say that other than the most incredibly broken spells, like the four Saph named (three of which are very high level), the real solution to balancing spellcasters doesn't have anything to do with spell lists. Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Sorcerers are all core and all considered too powerful. Everyone has a different way of balancing them, but here are a few common suggestions:
-Making the things spellcasters need and use less accessible. Perhaps certain spell components are limited or expense, certainly rods, staffs, and scrolls have to be hunted down rather than simply bought anywhere
-Monsters pick on spellcasters because they know they are the most dangerous and therefore each member of the fight gets attention proportional to what they can handle. There are a bunch of problems with this, DM vs. PC, the spellcasters is now also hogging the spotlight, defenses for any other character are useless, realism with monster tactics etc. However, for those who like to play D&D more like a strategy game, it is the go to tactic.
-Giving spells a base arcane failure chance, say 10%
-An initiative count penalty equal to the spell level.
-Spellpoints, and then playing around with modding that system.
-Using ToB and other splatbooks that help melees and monkeys more than mages.
-homebrewing to make sure all the other classes get a power raise.
-Low magic campaign settings or other settings that ban/restrict spellcasters.
-relying on players to focus on rp over combat, build nonoptimally, or disregard discrepancies in power levels.
Italics-Most Common Bold-Most Recommended

Gorbash
2008-10-10, 07:07 PM
-An initiative count penalty equal to the spell level.

That means initiative order would change each round and that will become bothersome on the person who keeps track of it. And it doesn't really matter at which point in a round you cast a spell, it won't make it less effective.

Crow
2008-10-10, 07:12 PM
That means initiative order would change each round and that will become bothersome on the person who keeps track of it. And it doesn't really matter at which point in a round you cast a spell, it won't make it less effective.

But it might give somebody a chance to get in and disrupt it. I think it should be twice the level.

Gorbash
2008-10-10, 07:28 PM
Disruptable spells are only those that take 1 round to cast it (Summoning and Dimension Door). Defensive casting ftw. Doubling the penalty will only make it easier to get it down to initiative of 1, at which point that penalty won't be able to apply, since you'll be the last anyway.

ericgrau
2008-10-10, 07:36 PM
IMO it's apples and oranges. I've never seen a (playable) way for a wizard to truly match a fighter in every single way... except temporarily with polymorph and/or seven buffs and/or a low magic item campaign'd fighter (usually 2-3 of those 3). Instead he tends to be more powerful by doing something completely different, like contingent celerity followed by (insert brokenation here). Or even the not so broken spells, but that's closer to apples and oranges whereas cheese is more like pineapples-while-in-Hawaii and oranges.

So there is no way to ever make them equal, any more than you can make a duck and a mongoose equal. But you could make a rough guess of it if you feel the wizard is stronger. You'll never ever fix the differences between the two no matter how much you nerf him, and both will still be necessary in the party, but at least then maybe the person playing Joe non-caster won't feel so lousy. IMO I would just leave things alone and disallow brokenation, but I know most people want to alter the balance so go ahead. Just know that they cannot possible made equal in any measurable way since their usefulness is highly situation-dependant and therefore always changing. How much you shift the balance is entirely up to you.

EDIT: I mention balance of power because of the varying definition of "broken" given by others. There are some obviously broken or at least powerful spells, but lots of people think most any spell is broken compared to non-casters. That's more of a fundemental mechanics issue, even though technically it involves a hundred different run-of-the-mill spells.

Crow
2008-10-10, 08:00 PM
Disruptable spells are only those that take 1 round to cast it (Summoning and Dimension Door). Defensive casting ftw. Doubling the penalty will only make it easier to get it down to initiative of 1, at which point that penalty won't be able to apply, since you'll be the last anyway.

The way I've seen it tossed around is that you begin casting the spell on your initiative count and finish on the modified count. In the next combat round, the wizard's turn falls wherever he finished.

So if your initiative is 20, and you cast a 4th level spell, you start the spell on 20 and finish on 16. If anybody goes between 20 and 16, they can go for the disrupt. In the next combat round, the wizard's turn starts on 16.

The "scale" goes between 1 and the highest initiative the wizard can get. If his maximum initiative score is 28, then after counting down to 1, he counts down from 28.

So if our wizard is currently going on initiative count 2 and decides to cast a 6th level spell, he will start the spell on count 2, and finish the spell on count 24. In the next round, he begins his turn on count 24.

monty
2008-10-11, 12:07 AM
The problem I see is that caster abilities tend to scale at an increasing rate, where other classes tend to increase at a linear rate.

For example, a level 1 wizard gets the ability to put something to sleep. A fighter gets +1 to hit and a feat. A level 9 wizard can create a near-impenetrable wall of force. A fighter gets +1 to hit and half a feat (on average). A level 17 wizard can stop time. A fighter gets...+1 to hit and half a feat.

Talic
2008-10-11, 12:14 AM
This is slightly inaccurate, but not very. The feats available to a 16th level fighter, with intelligent feat selection, are far more powerful than feats available to a level 1.

Thus, fighters have an increasing rate of gain, as well... Just a lower power curve.

Jayngfet
2008-10-11, 12:33 AM
As the frost plus permanence makes you immortal in theory...

sonofzeal
2008-10-11, 12:50 AM
This is slightly inaccurate, but not very. The feats available to a 16th level fighter, with intelligent feat selection, are far more powerful than feats available to a level 1.

Thus, fighters have an increasing rate of gain, as well... Just a lower power curve.
This would be true, IF there were many good feat chains that a human fighter couldn't max out at lvl 1 anyway. The longest feat chains are only about 5 feats long, which can be done at lvl 1 with flaws, or lvl 3 without. The only thing remaining is feats with BAB requirements, but there really aren't all that many of them. Improved Critical is good, but not "far more powerful" than, say, Power Attack. Possibly the hardest feat to acquire in core is Whirlwind Attack, which can be done easily by lvl 4.

No, Fighters really do get linear growth.

Talic
2008-10-11, 01:03 AM
PHB2. Read it. Contained therein are many feats requiring increasingly high levels of fighter, some of which are actually quite good.

EDIT: Robilar's Gambit, for starters.

Also, while it's possible to go down one chain, that's not really the whole story. Combining feat chains with tactical feats and such gets much greater synergy than any chain alone.

For example? Power Attack? Nice.

Combined with LEap attack and Shock Trooper and Combat Brute? Much better.

Yes, the options for a 10th level fighter are more attractive than the options for a 2nd.

sonofzeal
2008-10-11, 01:48 AM
PHB2. Read it. Contained therein are many feats requiring increasingly high levels of fighter, some of which are actually quite good.
Bought it, read it, use it regularly. Provides some good high level feats, but compare that to what a lvl1 fighter can do with Martial Study. If you're using all splatbooks, there's enough good low level options that the higher level PHB2 stuff is merely average. Robilar's included.


Also, while it's possible to go down one chain, that's not really the whole story. Combining feat chains with tactical feats and such gets much greater synergy than any chain alone.

For example? Power Attack? Nice.

Combined with LEap attack and Shock Trooper and Combat Brute? Much better.

Yes, the options for a 10th level fighter are more attractive than the options for a 2nd.
Let's take Power Attack + Leap Attack for a moment, compared to just Power Attack. Now, Leap Attack gets good synergy, effectively doubling the advantage of Power Attack (within certain limitations - you need sufficient space, sufficient Jump check, sufficiently small enemy, but let's ignore all that). So, for two feats you're getting.... twice the benefit of one feat. Yay for linear growth again.

I realize that's not entirely accurate, as Leap Attack also multiplies the base damage, and there's a few other factors involved. On the whole, Power Attack + Leap Attack probably adds up to about three times the benefit of just one of them... but that's about the best you can ever expect to do. Most feats just don't synergize well, or give too small a bonus. Power Attack and Leap Attack are two of the most famously excellent melee feats, which get nigh-unparalleled synergy from eachother, but that's the exception. And, like most of the combos, it's quite easily available to low level characters (in this case, level 6).

Honestly, I think for the most part, linear growth is about the best you can hope for. Compare what a lvl 20 fighter can do, compared to a lvl 1 Human Fighter with Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip, weilding a Guisarme. Is the lvl 20 fighter twenty times as effective at the lvl 1 fighter, with the same gp? I'd say sometimes, but usually not. And that's merely the standard for linear growth; exponential growth should be much, much higher.

Paul H
2008-10-11, 05:59 AM
Hi

It's really 'Horses for Courses' rule here. Sometimes it's magic users, sometimes it brute strength that wins the day.

My main Character in Living Greyhawk/Living Planar* campaigns has a Dakon Beguiler cohort, who regularly outshines him. Beguilers can dominate the table against living creatures. Against Undead or Constructs all they can do is buff the party. (Which they do well).

It'll be bit one sided if the Wizard faces a construct, and his only spells have SR. He could just be an extra pair of hands shouting 'Go Team'!

My main is a Dwarf Clr 3(Boccob: Magic Trickery)/Warmage 4/Mystic Theurge 5.
Cohort is Dakon Wiz 1/Beguiler 9 (Certed Cohort with Wiz 1st lvl).

Cheers
Paul H
(*For 'Onwal' readers that's Oskar Thorinson & Fek Chuk Nun AKA 'George').

Vva70
2008-10-11, 11:52 AM
I don't think that there are very many truly broken spells at all. And with all the talk about limiting casters to bring them down to the level of the non-casters...that seems to me to be completely backwards. The problem isn't that casters are too powerful. The problem is that non-casters are too weak.

Someone on the WotC boards made an interesting point. If you look at the premise inherent in the CR system, the threat you pose to other people (in a single combat anyway) is supposed to double every two levels. Whether or not the CR system is worth anything is an argument for a different place, but it's what's there. And I would argue that casters fit that exponential growth a lot better than anyone else.

NephandiMan
2008-10-11, 12:15 PM
Which is why full casters can defeat level-appropriate encounters by themselves. Not always, to be sure (except in the pure atmosphere of theoretical challenges), but much more reliably than non-casters.

Ravens_cry
2008-10-11, 12:16 PM
Shouldn't that be how it should be?
After all, a wizard is messing with the powers of the universe, bending them to his/her will, summoning creatures from the beyond to do his bidding, and creating out of thin air. A fighter? He/she is swinging a sharp (or blunt) piece of metal around. At leavel 20, he is still doing that. He may have +8 sword of choppy choppy and +12 armor of uber-tough, but he is still swinging a sword around. How can you make a fighter, as skilled as he may be, as powerful as one for whom the laws of physics are just, guidelines?

Vva70
2008-10-11, 01:45 PM
Three words: Charles Atlas Superpowers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower).

More to the point, if non-casters are completely outclassed by casters at high levels, what is supposed to be the point of playing a high-level non-caster alongside his caster buddy? I mean, sure, maybe it can be fun or make for a good story occasionally to have party members at different power levels, but this should be done intentionally and carefully, and you can represent that by actually making some of them lower level. If you think that wizards should eventually outclass everything fighters can do, then you shouldn't have level 20 fighters.

Thrawn183
2008-10-11, 03:05 PM
I can't believe nobody's mentioned blinding spittle. Ranged touch (at -4 penalty for not being proficient), blindness, no save, no SR. Considering that it's a second level spell, is it stranged that I would totally be willing to use Miracle to emulate it?

Triaxx
2008-10-11, 07:08 PM
Want to know the inherent problem with wizards vs. melee? At level 1 Fighter does 1d10 damage. At level 6 he's likely doing 1d10+2.

At level 1, a blaster does 1d4+1. At level 6, he's capable of doing 3d4+3. And that's with his weakest ability to directly deal damage. (Cantrips don't count.)

Temp.
2008-10-11, 07:41 PM
At level 1 Fighter does 1d10 damage. At level 6 he's likely doing 1d10+2.
Something is very wrong with this picture.

I don't think the problem is that the Wizard is necessarily better than the Fighter in the areas where the classes can be directly compared--damage output, for instance.
Class imbalance emerges where the classes' powers can't be gauged directly--the 1st level Fighter's 13 damage against the Wizard's Sleep effect, for instance. The Wizard's ability is drastically more powerful, but that isn't apparent when looking at numbers. When the abilities repeat between classes--the Fighter's damage output vs. the Wizard's--things tend to be pretty well balanced. A 6th level Core Fighter does 25-35 damage in an attack. A 6th level Wizard deals 21 damage with a Fireball.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-11, 08:32 PM
I have said this before, and I'll say it again: "The problem is not with the fighter, it is with his feats."

And what this means, here, in this context is that what makes a spell broken is that it allows a spellcaster to do something that no one else can replicate. This is also the fundamental basis of "sucky classes": a warlock is considered a poor class largely because anything it can do, another class can already do better--the same holds true for the Truenamer and the Samurai, among others.

With this in mind, the reason there is class imbalance (the whole Wiz v. Ftr disparit) is because spellcasters are capable of doing everything a fighter can, but a fighter is incapable of even doing some of the things spellcasters are.

The way to fix this, then, is to make things that fighters can do that spellcasters cannot. Incarnum went in this direction, and the Tome of Battle took it a step further. Both were very successful at making fighter-type character classes that were capable of competing with--and occasionally outclassing--spellcasters on a regular basis. The reason behind this? Because the books introduced material that was not readily available to a spellcaster: wizards weren't able to replicate Salamander Charge or Incarnate Avatar or Iron Heart Surge or Threefold Mask of the Chimaera within their basic class features (their spells)--rather, they were forced to multiclass to obtain these new sources of power, which brought them to the same starting point that the fighter-types were. Further, most of the powers borne within did not mesh well with spellcasting--at the very least, not as well as with typical fighter tactics--and as such were more beneficial to fighter-types than to spellcasters.

Yes, yes, there are exceptions (like Sapphire Hierarch or Jade Phoenix Mage), but for the majority of the material, fighter-types were provided material that spellcasters simply could not replicate.

The foundation of power, in D&D, is being able to do something meaningful that no one else can do. The solution, then, to the power disparity, is to give unique, meaningful powers to each class that cannot be mimicked by another.

Zeful
2008-10-11, 08:51 PM
Shouldn't that be how it should be?
After all, a wizard is messing with the powers of the universe, bending them to his/her will, summoning creatures from the beyond to do his bidding, and creating out of thin air. A fighter? He/she is swinging a sharp (or blunt) piece of metal around. At leavel 20, he is still doing that. He may have +8 sword of choppy choppy and +12 armor of uber-tough, but he is still swinging a sword around. How can you make a fighter, as skilled as he may be, as powerful as one for whom the laws of physics are just, guidelines?

But why is it so easy to bend the laws of physics? Why can magic bend the laws of physics at all? If magic is so scientific and formulaic, to the point that it's impossible to fail, then why can't a fighter have magic powers also? Because he's a fighter? That seems silly.

Draco Dracul
2008-10-11, 09:01 PM
But why is it so easy to bend the laws of physics? Why can magic bend the laws of physics at all? If magic is so scientific and formulaic, to the point that it's impossible to fail, then why can't a fighter have magic powers also? Because he's a fighter? That seems silly.

This. In a high magic setting magic should either be confined to a few people who rarely (if ever) deal with those without magic (think Harry Potter), confined to a few people who use that power to become the ruling class (think Bartimeus trilogy), or magic should be so common that every one has access to it (Ebberon).

Telonius
2008-10-11, 09:11 PM
Replying to the OP: Most of the worst offenders have already been mentioned. I would add two others for power, and two for sheer annoyance:

Protection from Arrows
Wind Wall
Dispel Magic (targeted)
Disjunction

Archer builds should not be made redundant by any spell, let alone a 2nd or 3rd level spell. Dispel is just plain annoying. It's broken due to the awful mechanics and paperwork, not because it's too powerful. Anyone who's had to keep track of which buffs are still active or which items have been suppressed for d4 rounds will know what I'm talking about. Similar situation with Disjunction; with the added problem that permanently disenchanting a magic weapon or piece of armor is just plain mean. I know it's a 9th-level spell, but still.

monty
2008-10-11, 11:40 PM
I know it's a 9th-level spell, but still.

I don't know about that. Compared to Gate, Time Stop, Wish, Mindrape...everything is broken by the time you get 9th level spells.

Talic
2008-10-11, 11:40 PM
Prot arrows doesn't negate an archer build. the DR is bypassed by magic, which means anyone with a +1 bow bypasses it.

Wind wall, ya got me there.

mostlyharmful
2008-10-12, 04:45 AM
Add in Control Winds, I've just remembered what happened the last time I forgot to ban that piece of Gouda, complete plot derailment after the central city got nuked.:smallfurious:

Ravens_cry
2008-10-12, 05:09 AM
Add in Control Winds, I've just remembered what happened the last time I forgot to ban that piece of Gouda, complete plot derailment after the central city got nuked.:smallfurious:
Ooh, I smell good story, Or are you still too peeved?

Satyr
2008-10-12, 05:47 AM
The problem wirg magic in D&D is not that it is too powerful, it is that it is too common. When the supernatural and extraordinary elements become common place, they lose much of its sense of wonder and appeal. Arcane magic should be arcane.
Magic is too common and too easy in D&D. There would be no problem with even the most powerful spell if they were difficult enough to learn, cast and control or offer an appropriate risk. But that is completely lacking, turning the magic in nothing but another form of mundane activities.
I have absolutly no problem when the power potential of any spellcaster who is more than a mere hedge wizard can outshine a swordfighter, but why should it be easy?

Saph
2008-10-12, 06:00 AM
Replying to the OP: Most of the worst offenders have already been mentioned. I would add two others for power, and two for sheer annoyance:

Protection from Arrows
Wind Wall
Dispel Magic (targeted)
Disjunction

See, I'd use these as an example of why you shouldn't label spells as broken. None, in player's hands, qualify IMO.

• Protection from Arrows: Bypassed by magic. Good against an army; useless against a single archer with a magic weapon.

• Wind Wall: Stationary. Does nothing except stop ranged attacks. Only lasts 1 round/level. Can be walked through. Can be gone around. Can be waited out. Suffice it to say that I've never seen a player even prepare the spell. It's underpowered if anything.

• Dispel: How else are you going to deal with the players who stack 10-15 buff spells on themselves? It's primarily an anti-buff tool, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

• Disjunction: Sure, it's vicious - but it's also, oddly, not a problem for DMs. Players won't generally use it because it means losing their loot, and they dread getting it cast on them even more, so they usually ignore the spell and pray the DM won't decide to hit them with it. So there's no real reason for the DM to ban it.

- Saph

Kobold-Bard
2008-10-12, 06:16 AM
I know I'll get metaphorically kicked in the face for this but what is wrong with Wish or Miracle? Its up to the DM to decide if what the player asks for is acceptable. As long as your careful they shouldn't be a problem.

Same question for Time Stop. Whats the big deal?

Eldariel
2008-10-12, 06:20 AM
Opponent can't react while Time Stop is going on. You can stack any kinds of effects on him, he can't do anything and he just dies. Basically, anything that prevents opponent from affecting your actions is A Bad Idea™. Getting a bunch of extra actions and such (most precious commodity in the game) while at it, and effectively ignoring the side effect of Celerity-line by spending the turn in Time Stop and such makes it downright stupid.

Saph
2008-10-12, 06:22 AM
I know I'll get metaphorically kicked in the face for this but what is wrong with Wish or Miracle? Its up to the DM to decide if what the player asks for is acceptable. As long as your careful they shouldn't be a problem.

On their own, neither is especially broken. However, some players come up with convoluted ways to get Wishes for free, bypassing the costs, so some DMs just prefer to ban the spell altogether. I usually allow the spell as intended.


Same question for Time Stop. Whats the big deal?

This one, however, is broken. It allows you too many actions. Anything that gives you multiple turns to an opponent's one is far too powerful (as well as being boring for everyone else to watch).

- Saph

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-12, 06:27 AM
I know I'll get metaphorically kicked in the face for this but what is wrong with Wish or Miracle? Its up to the DM to decide if what the player asks for is acceptable. As long as your careful they shouldn't be a problem.

Same question for Time Stop. Whats the big deal?Time Stop is bad due to it breaking the action system. The person casts the spell, and the enemy finds themselves 3 rounds later standing on a portal to Asmodeus' throne room. With a Wall of Stone falling on their head. And a Delayed Blast Fireball inside their throat. It wins the encounter, with no Save, no SR. That shouldn't happen.

Wish, the problem is, has no non-cheesy uses. None of it's listed uses are worth 5,000 XP, other than "Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item", which is fine if it's not used to create an item of "Wish at-Will, unslotted, with integrated +36 to Int and Use Activated("I die" as the trigger) True Resurrection". Which is a perfectly legal Wish, and doesn't even fall prey to the 'Partial Fulfillment' clause. Miracle is better, as it has no cost, so a lot of the effects are more reasonable, and since the DM can just veto the cheesy ones, it's balanced.

Uin
2008-10-12, 07:17 AM
Add in Control Winds, I've just remembered what happened the last time I forgot to ban that piece of Gouda, complete plot derailment after the central city got nuked.:smallfurious:

I thought I'd check this out after you mentioned it, since I was going to take Control Weather as a Greater Dragonmark spell-like. Control Winds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWinds.htm) at caster level 15, I use CL 15 since its a Greater Dragonmark, creates around a 180m radius nuke, dragging those that fail a DC 30 fortitude save (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/weather.htm#tornadoWind) to the centre of a tornado. Once at the centre you take 6d6 damage for 1d10 rounds. Is this correct?!

I was going to take Control Weather (I might still) for "Saving the City from Hurricane" moments, but Control Winds certinaly has... combat applications.

mostlyharmful
2008-10-12, 08:16 AM
Control Winds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWinds.htm) at caster level 15, I use CL 15 since its a Greater Dragonmark, creates around a 180m radius nuke, dragging those that fail a DC 30 fortitude save (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/weather.htm#tornadoWind) to the centre of a tornado. Once at the centre you take 6d6 damage for 1d10 rounds. Is this correct?!

Yes. Yes it is. its the Scenery-go-bye-bye-now spell. with CL boosters like Ioun stone, Karma Bead, Magic Tatoo, etc.... your druid can from level 9 flatten armies like a god, tear castles into little tiny pieces of schapnel and generally screw anything even vaguely CR-appro without a sweat.

Last time I let it be used was the last time it's ever legal around me, I spent three sessions building a good start to a campaign, it had a Druid in it. He disliked this Hobgob city being on his "ancestral hunting grounds", pretty standard stuff. He was a good player and although capable of it didn't turn himself into a campaign ruining Dzilla, he just ran around spamming battlefield control while his AC protected the Mage, about the best you can expect from a Druid. Anyway, I let them pick treasure once, ONCE, and he picks up a Bead of Karma, the Mage chooses an Ioun Stone, he puts Magic Tatoo into his spellbook. I firmly believe that none of them really thought this through but it just worked out that way.

The players were set up to rescue a kidnapped NPC from the city who had key info. Nothing bad so far. Then the players thought what was required was a big distraction, fine with me. They looked at their spell-lists for something with a big area. Okey-dokey. Druid picks Control Winds to use on the docks, he uses the Bead, gets a loan of the Ioun stone and the Mage tacks on Tatoo for the hell of it. Then we all look up wind effects specifics. :smalleek::smallfurious::furious:

A pretty good way to distinguish the difference between "Broken" and "Powerful" is if you can smash your game without being aware of what you're doing then the spell in question needs to be rewriten.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-12, 08:20 AM
A pretty good way to distinguish the difference between "Broken" and "Powerful" is if you can smash your game without being aware of what you're doing then the spell in question needs to be rewriten.Another good indicator is if the lines "So, how many of the citizens to I get XP for" and/or "What do you mean the XP for CR table only goes up to +7?!?" is ever uttered.

Epinephrine
2008-10-12, 08:25 AM
I'll agree with some specifics, like Blinding Spittle, as well as the generalities expressed.

One that I find a bit broken is Wall of Thorns. No save, no SR, can land it right on top of enemies, causing minor damage and immobilising them unless they can make DC25+ strength checks. Not a timestop or anything, but effective BC.

Gorbash
2008-10-12, 08:26 AM
I'm just sad it's not on a wizard's spell list. :smallbiggrin:

mostlyharmful
2008-10-12, 08:41 AM
I'm just sad it's not on a wizard's spell list. :smallbiggrin:

Anouther good way to tell is if a different caster is willing to use it in a slot two higher with an XP cost to cast it. And I'm fairly sure if it was up for grabs it'd still be a viable choice for mass death uses of Limited Wish.

IM@work
2008-10-12, 09:51 AM
Sorry, but has no one mentioned my most favorite broken spell in the game,
phantasmal assailants?

8 Wis 8 Dex damage, Initial Will save negates, fort save 4+4 damage.
2nd level spell.

There are some higher level spells that don't ever achieve that much ability damage. Ever. Break entire encounters with this. In my opinion better than shivering touch due to attacking both wisdom and dexterity for the player who does not know off the top of his head which stat is higher for the monster/character. Especially good for low level party destruction. Two hits on a character with a dex or wis of 16 or less and they are pretty much dead. Metamagic at higher levels to affect mass amounts of enemies.
Does anyone else agree/even know of this?

Eldariel
2008-10-12, 09:53 AM
The power of Shivering Touch is that it's No Save!

Talya
2008-10-12, 11:39 AM
Let's take Power Attack + Leap Attack for a moment, compared to just Power Attack. Now, Leap Attack gets good synergy, effectively doubling the advantage of Power Attack (within certain limitations - you need sufficient space, sufficient Jump check, sufficiently small enemy, but let's ignore all that). So, for two feats you're getting.... twice the benefit of one feat. Yay for linear growth again.


Just as a side point, doubling (or tripling, as you later say) is not linear growth, it's exponential. Like a spellcaster gets.

Linear: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
Exponential: 1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512

Yahzi
2008-10-12, 12:34 PM
Do you all know what Time Stop was originally used for? It's from a Jack Vance book. A group of wizards are having an election to see who gets a magic item; each of them writes their name on a piece of paper and drops it in a jar. Then the head wizard picks a name out.

While this is going on, one of the wizards uses timestop after the last name gets dropped in the jar. He uses his extra actions to replace all of the pieces of paper with ones that have his name on it. But he loses, because someone else used timestop to replace all the names just before the head wizard draws one out.

Yes, this is the original use of timestop: to steal treasure from other party members. Apparently Jack Vance knew gamers pretty well...

:smallbiggrin:

Roog
2008-10-12, 01:29 PM
Just as a side point, doubling (or tripling, as you later say) is not linear growth, it's exponential. Like a spellcaster gets.

Linear: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
Exponential: 1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512

At the first step they are indistiguishable (2*x == x+x).

The question is "Is there another feat that doubles (or triples) the effect of those two feats? And if there is, then is there another, and another, and another?"

Starbuck_II
2008-10-12, 01:41 PM
• Wind Wall: Stationary. Does nothing except stop ranged attacks. Only lasts 1 round/level. Can be walked through. Can be gone around. Can be waited out. Suffice it to say that I've never seen a player even prepare the spell. It's underpowered if anything.

Psst, Archers aren't the type to walk into your face because that draws Attack of opportunitieds when they fire.

Saph
2008-10-12, 03:20 PM
Psst, Archers aren't the type to walk into your face because that draws Attack of opportunitieds when they fire.

It's still a 'trap' spell. It's popular on boards because players who mostly go in for theoretical optimisation look at it and think, "Hey, I can completely shut down an archer build with this! I'd be invincible!". In practice, though, it's near worthless.

In certain very specific semi-military situations at lowish levels, it could be useful, but you could easily go an entire campaign without that happening.

- Saph

BRC
2008-10-12, 04:37 PM
It's still a 'trap' spell. It's popular on boards because players who mostly go in for theoretical optimisation look at it and think, "Hey, I can completely shut down an archer build with this! I'd be invincible!". In practice, though, it's near worthless.

In certain very specific semi-military situations at lowish levels, it could be useful, but you could easily go an entire campaign without that happening.

- Saph
While it's certainly not an unstoppable tactic of Pwn, I wouldn't call it useless. What it does is give you one less thing to worry about.



Lets say youve got some hobgoblins running at you with greatswords, some more standing behind them with longbows, and one wearing a robe and holding a staff behind them. Sounds like a pretty standard DnD Situation.

So you've got three threats to worry about, the Spellcaster, The Meeler's, and the Archers.
What do you do? You cast wind wall. "But BRC" I here you saying "That wont stop those meleers or that Caster, and those Archers probably have backup melee weapons". Very true, However, now you don't have to worry about the archers shooting you every round. You have greatly reduced their effectiveness. True, you havn't completally eliminated them, and there are still other threats, but you have made things a good deal easier for yourself. Now you can focus on taking down those meellers and caster without fighting in the shade.

Remember, just because a spell dosn't remove a threat completally, dosn't mean it's not useful. While I wouldn't reccomend a sorceror ever take it, if you know you are going up against rangers, a Wizard, Cleric or Druid would do well to prepare this.

AlexanderRM
2008-10-12, 09:03 PM
I know I'll get metaphorically kicked in the face for this but what is wrong with Wish or Miracle? Its up to the DM to decide if what the player asks for is acceptable. As long as your careful they shouldn't be a problem.
I totally agree. With these things with very bendy uses, it's easy for the DM to render the cheesy application completely useless: even in a totally valid but convoluted tactic, all the DM has to do is stick a butterfly in there SOMEWHERE (they might not see where it's going at first, but they should catch on eventually) and the whole thing falls apart. I think there's something in the DMs guide that effectively SAYS "let's say that the party wizard has somehow slipped a wish past you that lets them cast all their prepared spells twice instead of once. So then you have the enemy cleric use a Miracle spell to reverse the effect."
The issue is that some people think that any mechanic that requires the DM to actually DO anything to STOP the player from doing something overpowered will clearly be abused and break the game. By that logic, Wish is overpowered because you can theoretically wish to become an overdeity and there's nothing in the rules that says the DM has to stop you.





Same question for Time Stop. Whats the big deal?
Personally, I agree with the Time Stop thing. Even without persistent spell, there are so many cheesy uses you could do with it, and there's really not that much the DM can do to stop you. A moderate amount of fiction that involves stopping time also has things that can somehow resist the effect (if anyone here watches Heroes, you may have seen the "you don't STOP time, you just slow it down a whole lot"- that's actually what time stop is: you speed yourself up a whole lot), so the DM could always have something like that appear... in the three rounds or so that you're using it. I suppose the DM could always RFED someone who uses it TOO MUCH, but... ah, whatever.







Wish, the problem is, has no non-cheesy uses. None of it's listed uses are worth 5,000 XP, other than "Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item", which is fine if it's not used to create an item of "Wish at-Will, unslotted, with integrated +36 to Int and Use Activated("I die" as the trigger) True Resurrection". Which is a perfectly legal Wish, and doesn't even fall prey to the 'Partial Fulfillment' clause.

Yes it does, anything that could break the game or be overpowered falls prey to the "Partial Fulfillment" clause. As a DM, I could easily decide to instead give them a +2 to Int item, OR "Limited Wish 1/year", OR (best "in an undesirable way") Use Activated ("I die" as the trigger) Cure Minor Wounds (so you're healed 1HP... except you're already dead... so it has no effect, and the entire item is as such useless). Or maybe just create a cursed item, where the Wishes get corrupted worse than monkey paw, it takes up any and all slots you have (and can't be removed by any means) with -all but 1 to Int and replace True Resurrection with permanently destroy your remains and also your soul, as per a Sphere of Annihilation.

I suddenly want to see a player wish for something like that just so I can give them such a cursed item. :smallbiggrin: Maybe someday I'd tell the players that we're going to be playing a "very generous DM" type campaign (as in, deliberately allow you to do whatever abuses you want) and then deliberately twist everything in ways that only show up after everyone has done enough to ensure a total RFED of their own construction...






The players were set up to rescue a kidnapped NPC from the city who had key info. Nothing bad so far. Then the players thought what was required was a big distraction, fine with me. They looked at their spell-lists for something with a big area. Okey-dokey. Druid picks Control Winds to use on the docks, he uses the Bead, gets a loan of the Ioun stone and the Mage tacks on Tatoo for the hell of it. Then we all look up wind effects specifics. :smalleek::smallfurious::furious:
I must try that sometime. :smallbiggrin:

Heliomance
2008-10-13, 02:33 AM
Single most broken spell? Launch Bolt, from the SpC. It's a cantrip that allows you to launch a crossbow bolt as if it were fired normally from a crossbow. There are no restrcitions on how big the bolt can be. How much damage would a colossal bolt do, again?

Eldariel
2008-10-13, 02:46 AM
Colossal bolts do 6d6 damage. Unfortunately, you need some way to carry them around. Imagine the size of a crossbow a Great Wyrm would use - that's how big bolts you'd need. Something like human-length.

lord_khaine
2008-10-13, 04:10 AM
Personally, I agree with the Time Stop thing. Even without persistent spell, there are so many cheesy uses you could do with it, and there's really not that much the DM can do to stop you. A moderate amount of fiction that involves stopping time also has things that can somehow resist the effect (if anyone here watches Heroes, you may have seen the "you don't STOP time, you just slow it down a whole lot"- that's actually what time stop is: you speed yourself up a whole lot), so the DM could always have something like that appear... in the three rounds or so that you're using it. I suppose the DM could always RFED someone who uses it TOO MUCH, but... ah, whatever.


i dont really think timestop is that bad in itself, as long as its only used to buff up and summon some minions, then i belive its in line with the rest of the level 9 spells.

Eldariel
2008-10-13, 04:34 AM
I've played multiple level 20 arena fights. If one player resolves Time Stop, he's like to win. The problem is that you can't react to anything your opponent does during Time Stop. Therefore, all your contingencies, counterspells, celerities, protection spells and so on are useless - you're reduced to what you have on. And then they can stack area-effects on you that specifically all go off when the Time Stop ends (says as much in the Time Stop-description) and you die. Generally those effects include at least some effect that removes whatever protections you've got, few no-save big-damage effects and whatever debuffs/3d blocks/dimensional blocks the player deems necessary.

Combat in D&D is based on actions - every character has a certain number. Some classes bend the limitations (and that's why the old 3.0 Haste was so broken - it bended the "only one Standard Action per turn"-limitation; that made it so strong everyone past level 5 needed it), but fundamentally, that's where it stands. One of your actions should be about enough to either do as much as your opponent's action, or undo your opponent's action when both are equally powerful. This is why you need vastly more powerful "bosses" if you intend to challenge the party with a single monster too - while the monster's numbers are bigger, the party tends to have 4-5 times as much actions; that means that the monster's actions need to be 4-5 times more powerful to match, or the monster needs more actions than the characters. Time Stop gives one character as many actions as one party generally takes in that time. Sure, the actions have limitations, but that doesn't make them much weaker as there are many ways to bend and break those limitations.

If Time Stop granted you one full round's worth of actions, or two standard actions for the price of one, it could be ok. If Time Stop allowed responses during its duration as normal, it'd be much more fair. As it stands, it's utterly busted. So-called "I win-button". Heck, it should be telling that once you progress into Epic, provided that you've rationalized Epic Spellcasting rules so that they don't break the universe, the first thing most things get is some variety of immunity to Time Stop. Spell Stowaway: Time Stop or Epic Ward hitting Time Stop are standard fare as soon as you cross 20, and why shouldn't they be? If you've got some contingencies in place for it, perhaps you don't get annihilated in the first combat where you face two opponents both casting Time Stop.

lord_khaine
2008-10-13, 07:03 AM
well, to start with then standard time stop only gives you 2.5 additional actions, and if you wish to stack area of effect spells on your opponent, then they need to have a duration longer than the time stop, or else they wont have any effect.

so really, this more or less require you to first abuse metamagic to maximise your time stop, so you get the 5 rounds duration, after that you can then use delayed spells to go off when the time stop ends.

and all this does go against the situation i described, where time stop was only used for buffing up and summoning a few allies.