The new book says you can do what?


3.5/d20/OGL

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

It pops up every now and then. A rule/spell/feat/action/class race from a supplemental book or campaign setting doesn't sit right with a DM or player. Those are some of my favorite discussions and I would like to explore these thoughts.

Me first. Hate the orb spells, everything that directly attacks with fire or ice or electricity or sonic or force (exept mage armor is conguratuion for some reason) is evocation. But someone apparently wanted an attack spell that doesn't have to worry about that pesky Spell resistance.

I think the warmage is just a sorcerer that saves you the trouble of munckinizing it yourself and It steals a large niche from the sorcerer

I do not like all of these feats that swap ability scores for determining what stat applies its bonus to where. (with the exception of the force of personality feat)

Yes I know this looks like the rant thread but there is a small difference, I want replies, discussions. I love talking about this kind of crap so I figure this was a good way to start.

The Exchange

I own the 3 corebooks, MM2, DMG2, Arms and Equipment guide and Tome and blood. I stopped buying supplemental books when I realized that Wizards was screwing up the balance in D&D with mass produced and non-playtested books. Out of the books I own I only use the 3 corebooks, DMG2, Arms and Equipment guide and on rare occasions, the MM2. Probably not much help from me on this thread but, I kept running into problems with Tome and Blood and decided to Nix most supplements in general (leaves more money for scenery and other game enhancers anyway!). Sorry I don't have more to contribute.

FH


I don't see anything really unplayable in the books, the more important is that the characters have to be roughly equal in powers but if in a group I play there is someone who slay all the ennemies without the need to put me in danger that's cool.
As a DM you can always be stronger than any build produced by mini-maxing and using cool abilities from here and there.
I own the 3 core books, fiend folio, mm2, mm3, book of vile darkness, book of exhalted deeds, manual of the planes, expanded psionic handbook, the 4 completes, savage species, race of stone/the wild/destiny, frostburn, libris mortis.
I own also the 3.0 books you speak about (with light cover) they where also playable with sometimes strange things.


christian mazel wrote:

I don't see anything really unplayable in the books, the more important is that the characters have to be roughly equal in powers but if in a group I play there is someone who slay all the ennemies without the need to put me in danger that's cool.

As a DM you can always be stronger than any build produced by mini-maxing and using cool abilities from here and there.
I own the 3 core books, fiend folio, mm2, mm3, book of vile darkness, book of exhalted deeds, manual of the planes, expanded psionic handbook, the 4 completes, savage species, race of stone/the wild/destiny, frostburn, libris mortis.
I own also the 3.0 books you speak about (with light cover) they where also playable with sometimes strange things.

I don't care about game balance. I know the DM is given as power as the players and with a particularily power player group I have too. You don't have to have a mathmatical formula not to like something from the books. Maybe I see a few problems with game balance but it doesn't worry me. I grapple with other issues.

However I do disagree that all the books are playable. Try giving a dragon with a CR equal to challenge the party and before you unleash it min max it out with a custom feat selection from the dragonomicon and see what happens.


Sexi Golem 01 wrote:

It pops up every now and then. A rule/spell/feat/action/class race from a supplemental book or campaign setting doesn't sit right with a DM or player. Those are some of my favorite discussions and I would like to explore these thoughts.

Me first. Hate the orb spells, everything that directly attacks with fire or ice or electricity or sonic or force (exept mage armor is conguratuion for some reason) is evocation. But someone apparently wanted an attack spell that doesn't have to worry about that pesky Spell resistance.

I think the warmage is just a sorcerer that saves you the trouble of munckinizing it yourself and It steals a large niche from the sorcerer

I do not like all of these feats that swap ability scores for determining what stat applies its bonus to where. (with the exception of the force of personality feat)

Okay. Here's what I like from the supplimental rule books: All the stuff that some player out there is thinking about playing, some character concept or feat or racial ability that would make their character come 'alive' for them and enhance their gaming experience, is already done for me and I only have to worry about the adventure (as DM) and balance. Now, to your subjects for discussion...

Orb Spells. I don't dislike orb spells in general, but I do think they are a munchkin-esque vehicle for bypassing Spell resistance. I find them slightly better than Magic Missile at lower levels, but dispite context I usually put them in (going around rules) they do seem to be balanced overall. I believe that they can only ever target one creature or thing and need a ranged touch attack to hit. In my mind, this is fair.

The warmage. Hmmm. Does it steal a large niche from the sorcerer? Probably, but I loathe sorcerers as a concept anyways. I tend to think of the warmage as a class that specializes in war magic - like in 2nd ed. when you could be a shadow mage, or a song mage, etc. However, that's all you can ever know, battlefield spells. Let's take a look at that restriction a bit more. You can't use a wand, scroll, or word activated item if it's not on your spell list, and there are never any spells on the warmage's spell list that don't have a war application. I'm reminded of a book series about dragonrank sorcerors culminating in the novel By Chaos Cursed where these magic-users were required to attend this mage school for 11 months out of the year or could leave but never return. I don't know how to make it more palatable to DM's out there that don't like the class, but just try it out and see if it's too powerful, or whatever, and then modify or ban at will.

I like feats that allow you to be just as good as someone else but in a completely different way. A second level fighter with a 16 STR, power attack, and a MW longsword with weapon focus in it has an att bonus of +7, while a level 2 fighter with a weapon focused MW rapier, 16 dex and weapon finesse gets a +7. Both are great fighters but go about it in a totally different manner. Some of the Feats like Mind over Body are equally interesting but have their own restrictions.

What I don't like are actions that suppliment the core rules. I cast a spell, is it immediate, swift, a free action, what? Is there really a need to define stuff in fractions of a second like a game of Magic the Gathering? If you can only take one free action in a turn, and swift/immediate actions are basically just like free actions.. explain to me where the problem is again? Are they trying to promote a rules' lawyers bill of rights here or what?


Sexi Golem 01 wrote:


However I do disagree that all the books are playable. Try giving a dragon with a CR equal to challenge the party and before you unleash it min max it out with a custom feat selection from the dragonomicon and see what happens.

Why would any DM unbalance such an encounter by beefing up that equal CR challenge and calling it equal? What is described here is a higher CR than equal party level.

As ever,
ACE


The core-concept of the third edition, in my honest opinion, was character options. The new books that get put out only give you more options. This ensures that fighter A and fighter B don't have to be the same, as in previous editions.

In regards to the dragon whose CR is equal to the party, the party should have no problem dispatching him. As is stated about CR: "Challenge Rating assumes that a party of that level should be able to overcome the encounter with expending between 1/6th and 1/4th of their total resources." Hate to unleash my inner rules-lawyer, but a CR equal to the party is almost a no-contest for the party. That's just going by the numbers, that's not taking into account various tactics the DM employs.

I like to employ a golden rule: "If the PCs do it, I'm doing it to." That way, the challenge will always be there.

But, if you have a problem with something written in any book, you just have to look back to the ancient golden rule of DMing: "If you don't like it, don't use it."

More true words have never been spoken :)


theacemu wrote:
Sexi Golem 01 wrote:


However I do disagree that all the books are playable. Try giving a dragon with a CR equal to challenge the party and before you unleash it min max it out with a custom feat selection from the dragonomicon and see what happens.

Why would any DM unbalance such an encounter by beefing up that equal CR challenge and calling it equal? What is described here is a higher CR than equal party level.

As ever,
ACE

Exactly! feats are supposed to augment the character but not to change CR because they could take any assortment of feats and they will always adopt some weakness to exploit.

The draconic feats are too powerful to be given the title of FEAT they should be special abilities with a scale for adjusting the dragons CR


Orb spells. I do not think they are unbalanced I think they are stupid because they are conjuration. They should be evocation like all the other spells that produce their effects.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
Orb spells. I do not think they are unbalanced I think they are stupid because they are conjuration. They should be evocation like all the other spells that produce their effects.

I think the overarching problem is that the spell school system in D&D is stupid, badly organized, and desparately in need of revision. I had high hopes that 3e would address the situation (and did, in part, by removing 2e cleric spheres), but I think it's something that bears revision in the next edition. Now granted, the lines between divisions of magic will always be hard to draw, but D&D does a particularly poor job at the task.

I suppose the one positive thing to say is that because all of the schools are so poorly put together, none of them are particularly unbalanced or powerful. The schools are more flavor than function.

As for the orbs, move them into evocation. Every single spell can fit into creation or transmutation with some creativity, so you should alwys be vigilante in pruning back those schools.


Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
However I do disagree that all the books are playable. Try giving a dragon with a CR equal to challenge the party and before you unleash it min max it out with a custom feat selection from the dragonomicon and see what happens.

I've never had a DM play a dragon correctly. Any adult dragon should absolutely destroy most parties of equal level.

Correction, I had one DM do it right. He killed all but one of us.


Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
Orb spells. I do not think they are unbalanced I think they are stupid because they are conjuration. They should be evocation like all the other spells that produce their effects.

But aren't ypou conjuring up something from nothing, just like a 'mount' or summoned creature, or mage armor?

I personally believe that the spells schools are an interesting conglomeration of spells that step on other schools' toes. Why is Tenser's floating disk not a conjuration spell, but instead an evocation one? Why are the 2nd level buff spells like Cat's grace not enchantment spells - aren't they enchanting thecreature they are cast upon? For that matter, it's called an enchanted sword, not a transmuted sword, for a reason!

What's up with the Bard's spell list? Why aren't they the masters of shaping sound the way that wizards are? Ach!

Lot's of things don't really make sense in the D&D game to me, but trying to figure out why the spell belongs in the school it's in is tenament to trying to figure out the playoff schedule in BASEketball, if you've even seen that iffy movie.

I think that all the schools should be more visciously defined.

Abjuration is already pretty good; let them have all the protection spells.

Divination is good as well; if it's a spell that gains you intel, it belongs here.

Enchantment: Charms & compulsions are just the beginning! Give them any spell that gives something magic it didn't already have, like the buff spells, magic weapon, imbue undead with spells, etc.

Evocation: If you're manipulating raw energy for attack, the spell goes here.

Conjuration: If there is something there that wasn't before and it lasts for a round or more, it goes here. If you summon a demon and want to control it, you better not have enchantment as your prohibited class!

Necromancy: if the spell screws with life force or makes undead...

Transmutation: If the spell changes something to something else, it goes here.

Universal: Spell that you want every mage to be able to cast go here.

I don't think that I missed any schools, but I do find myself playing the devil's advocate to the above already.
"But what about a spell that does damage and also lingers?"
"What about those spells that are undefinable?"

For those (well, for the last one anyway) questions I have no answer, so I just raise my arms in front of me to shoulder height and do the zombie shuffle-step of inevitable comformance.
Baaaaah.


Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
It pops up every now and then. A rule/spell/feat/action/class race from a supplemental book or campaign setting doesn't sit right with a DM or player.

I tend to agree with you on virtually all points, with one exception: it doesn't "pop up every now and then", it pops up everytime we game. Sometimes "it" pops up multiple times in a game, and I realize it will continue to pop up as long as the DM allows these outside influences.


Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
Me first. Hate the orb spells, everything that directly attacks with fire or ice or electricity or sonic or force (exept mage armor is conguratuion for some reason) is evocation. But someone apparently wanted an attack spell that doesn't have to worry about that pesky Spell resistance.

I agree with you. That's exactly what these spells are designed to do. They should be evocations, but then the targets would get SR, so...

In my campaign, it's not really an issue, though, because I use a house rule suggested in Unearthed Arcana that SR doesn't apply versus energy spells. (That's what energy resistance is for, in my opinion.)


Sebastian wrote:
I think the overarching problem is that the spell school system in D&D is stupid, badly organized, and desparately in need of revision.

Hmm. I'm pretty sure I strongly disagree with your assessment, but I'm intrigued enough by the possibility that you just might know of a better way to ask: how would you revise D&D's spell school system?


Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
...I think the warmage is just a sorcerer that saves you the trouble of munckinizing it yourself and It steals a large niche from the sorcerer...

And I think the warmage epitomizes what is often wrong with newer products: WotC needs to make new products with new ideas, but all the good ideas have (for the most part) been taken. That often leaves the bad ones.

Lots of people seem to have some problem with the class and/or its spells. In particular, several warmage spells should clearly be of the evocation school, yet they are not. It doesn't speak to a carefully thought-out class. An inconsistency that bothers me is that the warmage, a specialty-wizard, casts Cha-based spell. What's with that?

For some reason that really puts a bug up my butt :/

Regards,

Jack

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Vegepygmy wrote:
Hmm. I'm pretty sure I strongly disagree with your assessment, but I'm intrigued enough by the possibility that you just might know of a better way to ask: how would you revise D&D's spell school system?

Bah. I just b!!$@ and moan, I don't provide anything of substance. But I suppose since you asked...

Here's what's good about the D&D system: it's irrelevant. It's all flavor and very little function. That means it's easy to design spells and put them in any old school. Will it break the game if I make a necromancy spell that lets you blast people with force blades? How about an evocation that turns you invisible? No because nearly all of the schools can do any and every effect, it's just a matter of how you describe it (This evocation creates light in a pattern that creates the invisibility effect!) The biggest problem with changing to a school system with functional effects is that each new spell can tip the balance and make one school better than another.

Nonetheless, it would be nice is if the schools had functional effects in the game. There are a lot of different models out there, but I probably lean towards something like the 5 colors in Magic. Each color has a set of functional mechanics that it can perform, and some of those mechanics bleed into other colors, but usually not as efficiently. Under this model, if you were a specialist in the battle magic school, that would actually mean something - you'd have access to better and cheaper combat spells. And if someone designed an energy blast spell and put it in the defensive magic school ("it's defensive because a good offense is the best defense!") you would be able to judge its inclusion based on the mechanic and not based on the author's ability to creatively define the effect.

Ideally, such a system would be set up with schools (and subschools) and then each caster would receive a set of schools or subschools to cast from rather than a defined spell list. Druids would cast from the treehugger and animal schools, clerics from the healing and protection schools, etc.

That's my thumbnail sketch. Basically, I would like for certain mechanics to be linked to certain schools, with some (but not much bleed) to differentiate the various schools.

And for the love of god, give healing and teleportation spells a school that makes some sense. They are the best examples of a mechanic shoehorned into the current school system.


Sebastian wrote:
Vegepygmy wrote:
Hmm. I'm pretty sure I strongly disagree with your assessment, but I'm intrigued enough by the possibility that you just might know of a better way to ask: how would you revise D&D's spell school system?

Bah. I just b&#%! and moan, I don't provide anything of substance. But I suppose since you asked...

Here's what's good about the D&D system: it's irrelevant. It's all flavor and very little function. That means it's easy to design spells and put them in any old school. Will it break the game if I make a necromancy spell that lets you blast people with force blades? How about an evocation that turns you invisible? No because nearly all of the schools can do any and every effect, it's just a matter of how you describe it (This evocation creates light in a pattern that creates the invisibility effect!) The biggest problem with changing to a school system with functional effects is that each new spell can tip the balance and make one school better than another.

Nonetheless, it would be nice is if the schools had functional effects in the game. There are a lot of different models out there, but I probably lean towards something like the 5 colors in Magic. Each color has a set of functional mechanics that it can perform, and some of those mechanics bleed into other colors, but usually not as efficiently. Under this model, if you were a specialist in the battle magic school, that would actually mean something - you'd have access to better and cheaper combat spells. And if someone designed an energy blast spell and put it in the defensive magic school ("it's defensive because a good offense is the best defense!") you would be able to judge its inclusion based on the mechanic and not based on the author's ability to creatively define the effect.

Ideally, such a system would be set up with schools (and subschools) and then each caster would receive a set of schools or subschools to cast from rather than a defined spell list. Druids would cast from the treehugger...

Uhm... you just defined D&D's spell schools, didn't you? Enchantment is GREAT at messing with people's minds, but has limited abilities in manipulating things physically (Hold spells), evocation is GREAT at blasting, but has a few options here and there otherwise (Tenser's floating disk). Transmutation is GREAT at physically changing things, but can also bend into the mental area with Eagle's Speldor, Owl's Wisdom, and Fox's Cunning. Abjuration is AWESOME at wardings, with a few semi-offensive things like Banishment. Conjuration makes PHYSICAL objects (thus the problem with orb spells, which I hold as well) from nothing, or calls things from somewhere else, with some protection like Mage Armor and damage effects, mainly from Acid descriptor spells, etc. Necromancy is quite blurry, I find, but I think that's the only one. Universal is odd, but so small it doesn't matter much. Oh, and illusion- fooling people, but with some ability to conjure and blast (Shadow spells).

How in the world is this a problem or poorly designed? I'm not ridiculing your comment, but inquiring as to why you find fault with it? No offense, but your last post was a bit vague. The schools seem very clearly organized to me.

As for healing, I think conjuration (the current format), transmutation, or necromancy would be appropriate. Conjuration is possibly the iffiest one of the three, but I can agree with the fact that it's making new flesh, therefore conjuring matter. As for teleportation spells, I think conjuration makes great sense as a school for these. You're calling a physical object (yourself, gear, and allies) from one place to another. That's very clear and makes a lot of sense to me.

As was previously asked, what exactly would you do to change this? Or, if it's easier to outline what you don't like rather than make a fix, which is perfectly acceptable, what WOULDN'T you do?


Saern pretty much made all of my points-in-rebuttal for me. (Thanks, buddy!) Especially teleportation being essentially conjuration-in-reverse. Makes perfect sense to me.

Is there room for improvement of the spell school system? Probably. But it's pretty darn good as is, in my opinion, and I certainly don't have any concrete ideas on how it could be made much better!

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Let me begin by saying I forgot that they finally put teleportation in a school that made some sense. For the longest time it was in transmutation. I stand by the fact that healing is not well cared for by the school system (which makes sense considering that cleric spells didn't use the school system prior to 3e).

As for the rest: Why is mage armor in conjuration? Why are all the shadow spells in illusion and not conjuration? If enchantment is the school of effecting the mind, what about the divinations that effect the mind? What about the buff spells that effect Int/Cha/Wil?

I admit, the 3.5 version is cleaner than prior editions, but it still suffers from the inclusion of Transmutation, Conjuration, and Necromancy. The first two are too broad (it's not clear how exactly evocation is all that different from conjuration - and no, I don't buy that it is duration. The orb spells are instantaneous and tenser's floating disk is not). Necromancy is a no-man's land of anything evil that doesn't fit anywhere else and/or effects undead.

How to make the schools better? Use the psionic style division which actually focuses on what the powers in that group do and not just on how they get the job done. Make it so that lazy developers can't just say "oh gee, things change as a result of casting this spell, therefore it's transmutation." *cough* knock *cough* Make it so that the difference between evocation and conjuration is more than just semantics. Put all the force effects in one school. Get away from the crazy Gygaxian categories of magic and use ones that are intuitive and elegant. Do a better job incorporating the druid and cleric spells into the school system.


Sebastian wrote:

Let me begin by saying I forgot that they finally put teleportation in a school that made some sense. For the longest time it was in transmutation. I stand by the fact that healing is not well cared for by the school system (which makes sense considering that cleric spells didn't use the school system prior to 3e).

As for the rest: Why is mage armor in conjuration? Why are all the shadow spells in illusion and not conjuration? If enchantment is the school of effecting the mind, what about the divinations that effect the mind? What about the buff spells that effect Int/Cha/Wil?

I admit, the 3.5 version is cleaner than prior editions, but it still suffers from the inclusion of Transmutation, Conjuration, and Necromancy. The first two are too broad (it's not clear how exactly evocation is all that different from conjuration - and no, I don't buy that it is duration. The orb spells are instantaneous and tenser's floating disk is not). Necromancy is a no-man's land of anything evil that doesn't fit anywhere else and/or effects undead.

How to make the schools better? Use the psionic style division which actually focuses on what the powers in that group do and not just on how they get the job done. Make it so that lazy developers can't just say "oh gee, things change as a result of casting this spell, therefore it's transmutation." *cough* knock *cough* Make it so that the difference between evocation and conjuration is more than just semantics. Put all the force effects in one school. Get away from the crazy Gygaxian categories of magic and use ones that are intuitive and elegant. Do a better job incorporating the druid and cleric spells into the school system.

I do not know why mage armor isn't evocation. And it makes sense to put olws wisdom ect into enchantement. The detect thoughts spells are divinations because they just listen in to the creatures mind they do not affect anything as enchantments do.

The difference between evocation and conjuration is that evocation gathers energy. Pulling heat or the absence of it into a fire ball or cone of cold.

Conjuation pulls something material to a different local.


Some very good points have been made here. I have had a big headache for months now as my players go out and buy the latest "book of the month" and radically beef their characters.

As of the PHB 2 coming out in a few months , all other books released after that will not be allowed in my campaign.

It has just been a bit of a nightmare to have a player rush into a session and explain to me that his wizard is now a thief because the suppliment says so, or if he takes this Feat from this book and that Feat from that book his 7th level character now has +20 to spot and can do it for free all the time...

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Sexi Golem 01 wrote:

I do not know why mage armor isn't evocation. And it makes sense to put olws wisdom ect into enchantement. The detect thoughts spells are divinations because they just listen in to the creatures mind they do not affect anything as enchantments do.

The difference between evocation and conjuration is that evocation gathers energy. Pulling heat or the absence of it into a fire ball or cone of cold.

Conjuation pulls something material to a different local.

The darn paizo boards ate my post. It was the Best Post Ever at that. Not only did I prove my point with absolute certainty, I also showed which religion was the one true faith. I will make a valiant effort to recap.

If evocations merely manipulate ambient energies, does that mean I can't cast a fireball in an arctic environment or cone of cold in the desert? If conjuration spells always bring something from one place to another, does that mean they can't be used in areas where other planes are inaccessible? The above distinctions remain a matter of semantics.

As I said before though, the good thing about the 3e system is that it is mostly cosmetic. If you are happy with it, great. I'm most likely irrationally fixated on the magic system. Every DM has some aspect of the game that strikes them as wonky and in need of repair, and for me, that aspect is magic.


rothandalantearic: the issue you bring is easy to fix, and since i happen to be a player (and part-time dm) that likes bringing the new books to the table, i know exactly how to fix it.

as the dm, you have the final say on whether or not your players get to use a book, or a feat, or a spell, or whatever. what i would suggest is that you have your players pitch the particular idea to you, instead of letting them take your approval for granted. i believe this will solve at least part of your problem. well, it works in the group i play in, anyway.

hope my advice helps,

tog


I think TOG has it. As a player if I wanted to do something with another book that just came out, I had to go to the DM and ask. He either said "no" or "yes", or there was sometimes the occassional, "Yes but...". I found this quite fair as he was the one who knew if it was going to off balance the game/campaign that he had set up.
As for orb spells, i haven't heard of them but they sound kind of cheesy. SR, DR, and ER are pretty clear cut. Why not just adjust the spells you have or actually think about how to overcome each instead of crying and moaning about "I want my mage to get through this guys SR but I don't want to have to wait for spell penetration, greater spell penetration and spell focus, I want to be able to use energy!" wah, wah wah! Well you made your choice, and you are a wizard, use that abundant intelligence and figure away around it without having to make up some stupid spell that does energy instead of magical damage. A creature has Spell Resistance, ah, too bad, well I just drop a keg of Alchemist fire on its head and shoot the damndable thing, BOOM! I don't think its magical fire, its alchemical and therefore bypasses SR. BURN BABY BURN!!
As a chance to say something completely cliche, our characters are always part of a team, and there is no I in team. Work together and you can't be stopped (well most of the time). Anyways this has become a rant and in the end i find Orb spells just another waste of time.
THe END

A.
P.S. I didn't mean to offend anyone just telling it like I feel. If you choose to use orb spells all the power to you. I just think they kind of ruin the idea of teamwork...sometimes.


Acctually I had no idea the orb spells (and i presume your talking about orb of acid, orb of fire and so on) wasn't affected by SR. Cool.

I have to say that I don't agree with the orb-bashing going on here. When I first saaw these spells I thought: "Finally. A chance for sorcerers and wizards to have some real high-magic magic from level one (without it being small pink energyballs also called missiles). Besides I can make use of energy at lower, as well as higher levels, in a way not possible before making it more plausible with the orb spells to be a fire-wizard, or a electricity-wizard (or whatever you wanna specialize in).

All this said, I do see your point of view and understand, but the orb spells are such a small part of all the new spells introduced in Complete Arcane and Spell Compendium, that they can be removed without you feeling ripped off.

And on another topic, I do not think the warwizard takes the place of a powergamed sorcerer. But that's another discussion and I don't want to hog anymore space on this thread.


Lenarior wrote:

Acctually I had no idea the orb spells (and i presume your talking about orb of acid, orb of fire and so on) wasn't affected by SR. Cool.

I have to say that I don't agree with the orb-bashing going on here. When I first saaw these spells I thought: "Finally. A chance for sorcerers and wizards to have some real high-magic magic from level one (without it being small pink energyballs also called missiles). Besides I can make use of energy at lower, as well as higher levels, in a way not possible before making it more plausible with the orb spells to be a fire-wizard, or a electricity-wizard (or whatever you wanna specialize in).

All this said, I do see your point of view and understand, but the orb spells are such a small part of all the new spells introduced in Complete Arcane and Spell Compendium, that they can be removed without you feeling ripped off.

And on another topic, I do not think the warwizard takes the place of a powergamed sorcerer. But that's another discussion and I don't want to hog anymore space on this thread.

Alright. The orb bashing is because of one thing. ONE thing. They are conjuration.

Conjuration creates or transports a physical mass. Heat, electricity, and cold, are not phsical masses. You can get into physics all you want on this but as far as the game is concerned these are not physical masses they are energies.

Acid can be conjured because it is a physical material with properties that act like many energies. So orb of acid makes perfect sense. And guess what, any spell that deals acid damage is conjuration. But the more suppliments that come out the more they start messing with the ground rules.

More from the supliments. Raising outsiders is all but impossible for mortals. It involves no less than 9th lvl powerful magic. It is a flovorful part of the game In my opinion. But they couldn't leave it alone they had to make a spell that could raise outsiders ten times easier. The spell discription states "raising outsiders is all but impossible but not with this spell. Every cleric HAS THAT SPELL now! No one would ever use the difficult way! They didn't just create a spell here they altered a core concept of the game!

And yes I know A DM can say what does and doesn't go in his/her game, but that doesn't mean I can't get annoyed when a new book comes out every month and makes my job a huge pain!

The new races that are just a diluted form of a cool monster, those just annoy me and I realize thats a presonal preference. But it seems like they suppliments often trample what was laid out by the core books.

Oh, and yes the Warmage is far stronger than any blasting type sorcerer. Not that a sorcerer can't beat them elsewere but if warmages are running around the artilliary sorcerer (one of their better roles in my opinion) will always be second rate.

Cleric, Enchantment spells do not imbue magic into anything They never have. They only affect the minds of other creatures I think you may be getting it confused with something else. Furthermore it is not what the spell does that says what spell school it is in. It is how the spell does it.

Evocation- it gathers and directs intangible energies

Conjuration- It tansports or creates a physical material or creature

Necromancy- Creates an effect using negative energy. (not life force as the name suggests)

Illusion- Creates something real or partially real

Transmutations- Gives a creature or object one or more new properties.

Abjuration- manipulates other active forces of magic. (I strongly disagree with the idea that this a protection school and I detest the spells that do not effect magic or alignments *stoneskin?* however I also will admit that it would cripple the school to remove them and balance is important)

Enchantment- alters the way a creatures mind works

Divination- creates a contact with either active intelligence (detect thoughts) or a remnant of an intelligence (legend lore) to gain information.

And if you do not think the warmage hogs the sorcerers spotlight then pot it that is exactly what this post is for.


Maybe the way to look at the orb spells is to think of it as your conjuring a physical orb that can contain thge appropriate energy in it. Thus you are not damaged while holding it but this physical barrier breaks when it is thron and contacts another creature. So while there is an evocation component since it envolves energy, the real function of the spell is the conjuration of the orb that holds the energy. Or maybe I'm just reaching. ;) I can't remember, but can you conjure the orb, but throw it latter like you would hold a touch attack? If that were the case it would further separate it from evocation since must of the energy spells tend to be instantaneous (except for the force based ones). So overall, yeah the orbs are mainly a metagaming thing, but you could rationalize them to some degree that makes sense.


Sexi Golem 01 wrote:

Celric, Enchantment spells do not imbue magic into anything. They never have. They only affect the minds of other creatures. I think you may be getting it confused with something else. Furthermore it is not what the spell does that says what spell school it is in. It is how the spell does it.

Oh, I totally realize that, but the word Enchantment certainly implies putting magic into something. In fact, the spell Break Enchantment even confirms that the magics in something can be unmade.

I further understand that it is how the spell accomplishes something, and not what the spell does, that designates what school it goes into currently. My point is that magic isn't physics and the 'laws' that govern it are intimately understood by it's practicioners, but not by me as the DM. I assume that there is a good reason for them being in whatever school they are it, and just amble on from there. All debating aside on how magic works or doesn't work, the only thing I know for certain is what the effect of the spell is. If the book says that the Orb spells are Conjuration, I have to go under some assumption that allows for the creation of energy magics contained within a thin membrane of force that can be sent at the enemy, or some other equally plausible configuration.

Sexi Golem 01 wrote:


And if you do not think the warmage hogs the sorcerers spotlight then put it (here); that is exactly what this post is for.

I agree that the Warmage hogs the spotlight of the artillery sorcerer. I think that the warmage would even beat out the same sorcerer in a mage duel due to the ability to counterspell any attack spell the sorcerer might try to throw at him. I love the flaver of the Warmage though, for the some of the same reasons that I dispise the sorcerer.

Reasons I love the Warmage:
1. Cool name.
2. Lots of attack spells.
3. Only attack spells - and Mage Evocation spells, too, I guess
4. An attack spell for any situation.
5. Background as to why the character is walking artillery.
6. Easy to DM for.

Reasons why I loathe the sorcerer:
1. Spell selection is much too broad for number of spells they can learn.
2.The ability to unlearn a spell to swap it with something else is crap. The bard's ability to do the same is crap, too. IMHO, if you lose something, it's just gone, and if it's an innate part of your being, learned through the intervention of dragon blood, or the force of your incredible personallity, or whatever, then that can't be unlearned because that makes no sense to me.
3. Attack spell are limited so badly that sorcerers often are the brunt of jokes. Sure you can cast magic missile 5 times, but my sheild spell will negate them all!
4. The party has filled a magic user slot in the group with limited options. We need to get across the ravine, can you help? I can cast fireball. Can you fly over there? I can cast lightning bolt. hmm, not helpful. Can you at least cast a spell that will allow us to climb the ravine easier? I can cast web...
5. No common background.
6. Difficult to Dm, but mostly due to thier pidgeon-holed spellcasting ability.

To me, the flavor of a character is everything. If I want a mage that is artillery, I become a warmage. If I want a mage that gets his spells from pacts with outsiders, I become a Warlock. If I want to play a mage who can learn any spell for any situation, I play a wizard.

IMO, the only thing that a sorcerer brings to the table is lots of spells that have minimal types of effects.

Now, it you didn't want to play an artillery sorcerer, but rather an Enchantress (and yes, I can see my own bowl of crow here, no need to pass it to me) that can cast charm person, suggestion, and sleep at first level, that would at least be a bit cooler. Or a necromatic sorcerer casting ray of enfeeblement on everyone, or a conjurer with augmented summoning. - basicly, ANYTHING but a magic missile flinging, fireballing, horrid wilting at will spell wielder.

Not that there's anything wrong with that :)


Timault Azal-Darkwarren wrote:
Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
However I do disagree that all the books are playable. Try giving a dragon with a CR equal to challenge the party and before you unleash it min max it out with a custom feat selection from the dragonomicon and see what happens.

I've never had a DM play a dragon correctly. Any adult dragon should absolutely destroy most parties of equal level.

Correction, I had one DM do it right. He killed all but one of us.

Thats my take on Dragons as well - they ought to be nasty with a capital N. The players should quiver in their booties at the mere concept of facing a Dragon and if they take it down they should end up licking their wounds and hoping not to have to do that again anytime soon.


I have two characters with the feat monkey grip. From my understanding this allows a character the ability to use a weapon one size catagory higher than the character. For example a med size creature could wield a lrg sized weapon. What this has done is allow the characters weapons to do 3d8 and 3d6 dam. respectfully.

I am finding my twin damage demons unbalance combat a bit. To compensate for the massive damage these two can deal I have made it a habit of uping HP totals well above average, usually max. This makes weapon damage from some other characters insignificant.

Now that I think of some of the other characters have compensated with investing in powerful spells and magic weapons.

As for me I have found highly mobile (usually flying) enemies with range attacks nearly nulify the attacks of the damage demon twins. Also both have fallen under spells such as suggest, command, fear, which require Wil saves. I can't wait to unleash dominate and confusion on these two. That should be fun for the whole party.

Any one else have experience with the feat monkey grip?


On the topic of Orbs and other supplemental spells: My players all know that my assent for non-core spells/feats/PrCs is NOT granted automatically. One of my players recently wanted to learn lesser orb of fire, so I let her. I made a note in my personal Spells Edited list that Lesser Orb Fire is an evocation; to balance the Acid Orb I reduced its damage dice to d6s.

On the topic of basic spell rules and such: I've always loved the thematic mechanics behind Magic the Gathering. Each color (school) has its own area of expertise, sometimes bleeding over into other colors in the form of Gold spells. Though I stopped collecting years ago, I've seen some of the new cards and it seems that Magic's spell system has become at least as muddled as D&D's. I once saw a white death-spell; wtf?! That would be like putting Power Word Kill in the abjuration school. Anyway, has anyone ever experimented with different spell rules/systems in the D&D context?

On the topic of my own gripes: Does anyone know why the Druid is allowed to use scimitars? It's the same weight as the forbidden longsword. Yeah I know it provides flavor for the class but this kinda thing just bugs me...


Sir Kaikillah wrote:
Any one else have experience with the feat monkey grip?

I actually have a character named Hiroshige with the monkey grip feat; the group calls him Cloud because of the similarity to a buster-sword. Anyway, this is how I think of Monkey-grip: it allows a PC to do more damage at the expense of attack bonus like Power Attack. However, unlike PA using a Large weapon is not variable from round to round. So if Hiroshige were to face a really high AC baddie, his Medium size axe wielding friend would be at the advantage as he would be able to drop all extra damage in order to hit resonably often.


Celric wrote:
Sexi Golem 01 wrote:

Celric, Enchantment spells do not imbue magic into anything. They never have. They only affect the minds of other creatures. I think you may be getting it confused with something else. Furthermore it is not what the spell does that says what spell school it is in. It is how the spell does it.

Oh, I totally realize that, but the word Enchantment certainly implies putting magic into something. In fact, the spell Break Enchantment even confirms that the magics in something can be unmade.

I further understand that it is how the spell accomplishes something, and not what the spell does, that designates what school it goes into currently. My point is that magic isn't physics and the 'laws' that govern it are intimately understood by it's practicioners, but not by me as the DM. I assume that there is a good reason for them being in whatever school they are it, and just amble on from there. All debating aside on how magic works or doesn't work, the only thing I know for certain is what the effect of the spell is. If the book says that the Orb spells are Conjuration, I have to go under some assumption that allows for the creation of energy magics contained within a thin membrane of force that can be sent at the enemy, or some other equally plausible configuration.

Sexi Golem 01 wrote:


And if you do not think the warmage hogs the sorcerers spotlight then put it (here); that is exactly what this post is for.

I agree that the Warmage hogs the spotlight of the artillery sorcerer. I think that the warmage would even beat out the same sorcerer in a mage duel due to the ability to counterspell any attack spell the sorcerer might try to throw at him. I love the flaver of the Warmage though, for the some of the same reasons that I dispise the sorcerer.

Reasons I love the Warmage:
1. Cool name.
2. Lots of attack spells.
3. Only attack spells - and Mage Evocation spells, too, I guess
4. An attack spell for any situation.
5. Background as to why the character is walking...

Warmage is weak as a class. When I first saw it I thought it would be cool. But it wasn't. In fact it's lame.. (The warlock in theat book was cool and I thought it would be lame)

Any way as a spell caster it lacks versatility. Hey my sorcerer can cross the ravine by casting jump. He doesn't have fly, That spell slot he saved for the fireball he'll throw at that sorry a## warmage, stuck back across the ravine. I bet protection energy (fire) would have been a good option. Ohh but wait if it don't do damage then you probably can't cast it.

But in the end Feldspar the Wizard & master of the 13 styles of funk, would beat both you want to be lame a## mages (with intellegence and preperation.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Sir Kaikillah wrote:

Any one else have experience with the feat monkey grip?

I actually have a character named Hiroshige with the monkey grip feat; the group calls him Cloud because of the similarity to a buster-sword. Anyway, this is how I think of Monkey-grip: it allows a PC to do more damage at the expense of attack bonus like Power Attack. However, unlike PA using a Large weapon is not variable from round to round. So if Hiroshige were to face a really high AC baddie, his Medium size axe wielding friend would be at the advantage as he would be able to drop all extra damage in order to hit resonably often.

Where do they lose the attack bonus?

At seventh level both have already picked up power attack, which can be doulbled when weilding a weapon two handed. do the math that is a total of +14 to damage.

One character has a feat called leap attack. Add a good jump with boots of springing and striding and she can triple her power attack , that is +21 dam at the expence of the +7 base attack bonus. So for this character that is 3d6+21

P>S> another thing I have done is give the large weapons reach, then applied a -2 to hit penalty to creatures in an adjascent square. Hopefully giving an advantage to a character that gets in close.


Sir Kaikillah wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Sir Kaikillah wrote:

Any one else have experience with the feat monkey grip?

I actually have a character named Hiroshige with the monkey grip feat; the group calls him Cloud because of the similarity to a buster-sword. Anyway, this is how I think of Monkey-grip: it allows a PC to do more damage at the expense of attack bonus like Power Attack. However, unlike PA using a Large weapon is not variable from round to round. So if Hiroshige were to face a really high AC baddie, his Medium size axe wielding friend would be at the advantage as he would be able to drop all extra damage in order to hit resonably often.

Where do they lose the attack bonus?

At seventh level both have already picked up power attack, which can be doulbled when weilding a weapon two handed. do the math that is a total of +14 to damage.

One character has a feat called leap attack. Add a good jump with boots of springing and striding and she can triple her power attack , that is +21 dam at the expence of the +7 base attack bonus. So for this character that is 3d6+21

P>S> another thing I have done is give the large weapons reach, then applied a -2 to hit penalty to creatures in an adjascent square. Hopefully giving an advantage to a character that gets in close.

Large weapons do not give reach. His axe might be as long as a typical longspear but there is no way he can swing it at full length because, unlike the longspear which has relatively evenly distributed weight, that axe has a 30lb head on the end of it. If you want to tone down the power I suggest making them used as normal with a 5ft range. I do not have my CW with me but I think Tequilla is refering to the attack penalty -2 a character takes for using a larger weapon even with the feat.

Cleric, agreed that enchantment might not be aptly named but that does not change what the school actually does it effects creatures minds.

The same can be said of necromancy. It is called necromancy but it does not manipulate life force, It manipulates negative energy as the game states. I can look past that though with only a mild irritation. But what kills me is when a new book tramples on what the core books (even though they have their own little holes too) had laid out. And I'm tired of having to comb through 600 new spells to weed out the ones I do not think are right.

And me and my players actually use magic as the games form of physics. Thats what I like about it. The core books outlined the way magic works much like science with rules and catagories although since it is not real it left a whole lot of blanks to fill up. My group and I have had a great time filling in those blanks and turning magic more real for the players.

A discription of phantasmal killer. "Concentrating on your own fears and doubts you watch carefully at the impression your fear makes on the weave in front of you. The incantation you speak causes the strands of magic and thought to collapse in on one another blending into a dark union. As soon as the web is ready to do it's work you trace a thin strand of power to the creatures own mind targeting the center of his fear. As the final component is spokes the spell is released quickly sinking into the creatures mind and a shadowy figure appears in front of the beasts eyes as it's eyes widen in terror."

Thats the kind of stuff that adds to the realism to my D&D world and the more that mages start to become just "the guy that chose magic stuff instead of swinging a sword" the more it irritates me.

And one last thing on the Warmage. If you want that name thats fine take it. The classes names are just suggestions anyway. James Bond doesn't call himself a rogue. A guard doesn't adress himself as a second level warrior. Characters can call themselves what they want. That and the explaination of how they came to be warmages "with there vast warmage schools" is annoying. It limits the story that a character can produce. Sorcerers do not need an implanted explaination because thats the job of the DM and the player.

All of these just respectful differences.


Hello. Over on enworld I have a few threads you may be interested in. One is too powerful or unbalanced prestige classes, I had 140 post and then I made a list of the responses. They are at www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=163228 and 167294. Currently I am going on a mini-rant about spells without saves, on the too powerful feats. Check it out if you like and I would appreciate your thoughts.


Sexi, I'm not sure where you're getting "life force" to be a quintessential (sp?) part of the name necromancy. I don't know what the "mance" part means in Greek or Latin, but I'm making a guess that it means manipulation, as it also applies to pyromancers, aeromancers, etc., all of which "manipulate" something. And necro obviously means "death" or "dead"; that's well accounted for.

So, the name as I understand it means "manipulation of death"; "life force" has nothing to do with it at all. Strictly speaking, every spell in the school should ahve something to do with undead- such as, in D&D, their power source, negative energy, which makes the name perfect. Now, the exact effects of this "negative energy" are certainly a bit muddled, but the fact remains that, given the spell manipulates negative energy, the name is perfect.

Perhaps you meant something different in your post? In that case, I apologize, but please try to be more clear in your statements. This would then be a perfect example of the confusion created by not slowing down long enough to make sure you say what you mean.

Regarding the orbs: There is a perfectly good solution to the whole problem, one which many of you have already found. Time me. Ready? Change all but acid to evocation and make them subject to SR. Done. How was that? Here's an alternate: disallow all but Orb of Acid, and maybe Orb of Force. Don;t get me wrong; it irritates me to no end that WotC did made those spells as they did, but it's not a hard blunder to fix.

Just a few opinions.


Sir Kaikillah wrote:


Any one else have experience with the feat monkey grip?

I have a player who is a Half-Giant hankering for this feat. I figure it will be pretty brutal for a few levels. After that I think things will tend to balance out again. Once the opposition starts to average 50 hps for the lackeys and 100+ for the big baddies its not such an issue - also like you I up the HPs though I presume my monsters cannot roll the lower half of the die in HPs (so a D10 = 5+d5 hps per hd(or for simplicitys sake 7.5 per hd round up)). Since this is very close to what I allow the players (since there is nothing worse then the fighter PC crying when he rolls a 1 for hps) I figure its all even in the end.

The Exchange

Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
Orb spells. I do not think they are unbalanced I think they are stupid because they are conjuration. They should be evocation like all the other spells that produce their effects.

What about Melf's Acid Arrow - that's conjuration (or it was last time I looked). There is an existing tradition of conjuration attack spells that avoid SR, so it is not unprecedented. So what's your beef? If it doesn't affect game balance, which you agree it doesn't, what is wrong with it? No one forces you to use it as a player, or a DM. Also, it makes taking evocation as a banned school - otherwise, who really doesn't ensure they have evocation spells available - more viable if you choose to specialise as a wizard (which chimes with me from a roleplaying/character concept angle if nothing else).

I agree with a previous post - 3E is about options (and 1E and 2E never was - which is why in D&D's heyday in the 80s I usually played RQ). This is just providing more options. I agree that there could be a bit more playtesting sometimes, but I really can't see why these things upset you so much. Don't like'em, don't use'em.

The Exchange

Tatterdemalion wrote:
Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
...I think the warmage is just a sorcerer that saves you the trouble of munckinizing it yourself and It steals a large niche from the sorcerer...

And I think the warmage epitomizes what is often wrong with newer products: WotC needs to make new products with new ideas, but all the good ideas have (for the most part) been taken. That often leaves the bad ones.

Lots of people seem to have some problem with the class and/or its spells. In particular, several warmage spells should clearly be of the evocation school, yet they are not. It doesn't speak to a carefully thought-out class. An inconsistency that bothers me is that the warmage, a specialty-wizard, casts Cha-based spell. What's with that?

For some reason that really puts a bug up my butt :/

Regards,

Jack

I certainly think that very few of the new classes (as opposed to the PrCs) add anything much needed. Certainly, a lot of them really look like possible PrCs (ESPECIALLY the spellthief) instead of core classes. The only possible exception is the warlock, which is different and interesting. There has been an interesting debate on the efficacy and balance of the warlock already on these pages, so I'll leave the subject here.

The Exchange

Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
Lenarior wrote:

Acctually I had no idea the orb spells (and i presume your talking about orb of acid, orb of fire and so on) wasn't affected by SR. Cool.

I have to say that I don't agree with the orb-bashing going on here. When I first saaw these spells I thought: "Finally. A chance for sorcerers and wizards to have some real high-magic magic from level one (without it being small pink energyballs also called missiles). Besides I can make use of energy at lower, as well as higher levels, in a way not possible before making it more plausible with the orb spells to be a fire-wizard, or a electricity-wizard (or whatever you wanna specialize in).

All this said, I do see your point of view and understand, but the orb spells are such a small part of all the new spells introduced in Complete Arcane and Spell Compendium, that they can be removed without you feeling ripped off.

And on another topic, I do not think the warwizard takes the place of a powergamed sorcerer. But that's another discussion and I don't want to hog anymore space on this thread.

Alright. The orb bashing is because of one thing. ONE thing. They are conjuration.

Conjuration creates or transports a physical mass. Heat, electricity, and cold, are not phsical masses. You can get into physics all you want on this but as far as the game is concerned these are not physical masses they are energies.

Acid can be conjured because it is a physical material with properties that act like many energies. So orb of acid makes perfect sense. And guess what, any spell that deals acid damage is conjuration. But the more suppliments that come out the more they start messing with the ground rules.

More from the supliments. Raising outsiders is all but impossible for mortals. It involves no less than 9th lvl powerful magic. It is a flovorful part of the game In my opinion. But they couldn't leave it alone they had to make a spell that could raise outsiders ten times easier. The spell discription states "raising outsiders is all but...

This thread is great - so much to reply to! If it was me, I really wouldn't get so hung up on what spells are in which school, or whatever. This is the ultimate in metagame thinking, but I think it is a valid point: the schools are set out to try and be a bit balanced, for the sake of the specialist wizards. Between 3.0 and 3.5 there was a big re-jig of what spells went into which schools - in order to balance things out. So getting your knickers twisted about whether such-and-such a spell should be conjuration or evocation is besides the point. The schools as they stand are functions of how play in the game has panned out over time and shared experience of the designers, not about (frankly spurious) physical explanations of what "conjuration" and "evocation" actually mean.

I personally LIKE the fact that non-evokers have some blasting spells - why should evokers have all the fun? Is it beyond the realms of possibilities that a conjurer or two, wanting to make up for his inability to mow down hordes with a few syllables, mystic gestures and pinch of bat crap, created a conjuration spell that, while not the same, does something like an evocation (and also, like Melf's, avoids SR)?

So guys, lighten up, relax, enjoy the game. It's really not a big deal, and with a bit of creative thought the spells can be accommodated where they are. Or, if it really bothers you, moved to another school. The DM knows all, after all.

The Exchange

Sexi Golem 01 wrote: And me and my players actually use magic as the games form of physics. Thats what I like about it. The core books outlined the way magic works much like science with rules and catagories although since it is not real it left a whole lot of blanks to fill up. My group and I have had a great time filling in those blanks and turning magic more real for the players.

Hey Sexi:

Well - dare I say it, that is your "problem". I think it's great if you want to get the magic system to be systematic and part of the game like that (though it's not really an issue for me). But of course, every new spell throws a potential spanner in the works. I would sugest that you ban all new supplement content until you have had a chance to carefully review and see where it fits in with the game and setting as you see it.

However, I would suggest that the issue isn't that there is a problem with the magic system in D&D, but that you need it to make sense for yourself and the game. But it is just a construct of the rules, not of any fundemental truth. I recommend, if you have time (and how many DMs have all that much time really, what with the real world and everything) you give a serious think to how you want the magic system to work for your game. This could involve:

- rebalancing the existing schools
- changing the schools to something new, like you suggested
- maybe restricting the knowledge of certain spells (just becuase it is in a rulebook doesn't mean it is common currency, even for clerics - think for example of initiate feats in FR)

Just for starters. But the game isn't, at the base line, designed around your needs as a DM specifically, so I would imagine each new supplement could bring more pain than joy. I think you might just need to accept that.


Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
Sir Kaikillah wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Sir Kaikillah wrote:

Any one else have experience with the feat monkey grip?

I actually have a character named Hiroshige with the monkey grip feat; ...I think of Monkey-grip: it allows a PC to do more damage at the expense of attack bonus like Power Attack. ...

Where do they lose the attack bonus?

Large weapons do not give reach. His axe might be as long as a typical longspear but there is no way he can swing it at full length because, unlike the longspear which has relatively evenly distributed weight, that axe has a 30lb head on the end of it. If you want to tone down the power I suggest making them used as normal with a 5ft range. I do not have my CW with me but I think Tequilla is refering to the attack penalty -2 a character takes for using a larger weapon even with the feat.

but it...

Thanx for the heads up I will look better at the CW

I like how you al spell it out.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
Orb spells. I do not think they are unbalanced I think they are stupid because they are conjuration. They should be evocation like all the other spells that produce their effects.

What about Melf's Acid Arrow - that's conjuration (or it was last time I looked). There is an existing tradition of conjuration attack spells that avoid SR, so it is not unprecedented. So what's your beef? If it doesn't affect game balance, which you agree it doesn't, what is wrong with it? No one forces you to use it as a player, or a DM. Also, it makes taking evocation as a banned school - otherwise, who really doesn't ensure they have evocation spells available - more viable if you choose to specialise as a wizard (which chimes with me from a roleplaying/character concept angle if nothing else).

I agree with a previous post - 3E is about options (and 1E and 2E never was - which is why in D&D's heyday in the 80s I usually played RQ). This is just providing more options. I agree that there could be a bit more playtesting sometimes, but I really can't see why these things upset you so much. Don't like'em, don't use'em.

Melfs acid arrow is conjuration as it should be. Acid is a solid object so you can conjure it, fire or cold are energies. My only beef is that the orb spells were made into conjuration when they are not.I do not like them and I do not use them. The only reason I have so many posts on this is because I have to keep clarifying why I dislike them.

Conjuration spells do not have a tradition of overcoming SR. They avoid it because the magic is used to call or create the substance. But after that the acid is already there and it is not magical in nature. A fireball is however because the magic is actively holding the heat together and without it the heat cannot stay concentrated and dissipates.

This is how the spells are described in the PHB. If a spell does something (such as not being subject to spell resistance)then it will give you a reason why it does so somewhere in the book

Final word on the orb spells. They were given a spell school they did not belong to. This was so that they could justify removing spell resistance, not because it made sense with the existing rules of magic. I do not think they are too powerful even with the SR removed. In fact the lesser orbs are worthless compared to things like colorspray or ray of enfeeblement.


OK. I see your point. But how about this.

You define conjuration as creating something physical (hope I'm getting this right). So how about renaming the orb of fire to orb of magma (or lava). Still fire damage but delivered in a physical form. And the orb of cold could still be called the same but you could conjure cold air (air is still a physical thing it just doesn't have alot of mass or density).

Don't realy know about the electricity and sonic orbs though.

The Exchange

Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Sexi Golem 01 wrote:
Orb spells. I do not think they are unbalanced I think they are stupid because they are conjuration. They should be evocation like all the other spells that produce their effects.

What about Melf's Acid Arrow - that's conjuration (or it was last time I looked). There is an existing tradition of conjuration attack spells that avoid SR, so it is not unprecedented. So what's your beef? If it doesn't affect game balance, which you agree it doesn't, what is wrong with it? No one forces you to use it as a player, or a DM. Also, it makes taking evocation as a banned school - otherwise, who really doesn't ensure they have evocation spells available - more viable if you choose to specialise as a wizard (which chimes with me from a roleplaying/character concept angle if nothing else).

I agree with a previous post - 3E is about options (and 1E and 2E never was - which is why in D&D's heyday in the 80s I usually played RQ). This is just providing more options. I agree that there could be a bit more playtesting sometimes, but I really can't see why these things upset you so much. Don't like'em, don't use'em.

Melfs acid arrow is conjuration as it should be. Acid is a solid object so you can conjure it, fire or cold are energies. My only beef is that the orb spells were made into conjuration when they are not.I do not like them and I do not use them. The only reason I have so many posts on this is because I have to keep clarifying why I dislike them.

Conjuration spells do not have a tradition of overcoming SR. They avoid it because the magic is used to call or create the substance. But after that the acid is already there and it is not magical in nature. A fireball is however because the magic is actively holding the heat together and without it the heat cannot stay concentrated and dissipates.

This is how the spells are described in the PHB. If a spell does something (such as not being subject to spell resistance)then it will give...

1. Do you KNOW they were created to bypass SR? Is that explicit anywhere?

2. Does it really matter, if game balance is not upset?

As I said before, this is your particular kink, not a problem with the rules. If you don't like it, don't use it. But I don't see why you really have to share it at such length. I'm not trying to censor you, you can write what you like. But, really, is it really worth all of this effort? I'm not trying to be unfriendly, just trying to heal your pain. Conjuration, SR, evocation, orb spells - it's not real! It's just the rules - tailor them if you don't like them. But it's not important. You are not asking for clarification, you are just ranting. OK - I respect your opinion. I don't agree, and I'm not going to change your mind. Enough, already!


Lenarior wrote:

OK. I see your point. But how about this.

You define conjuration as creating something physical (hope I'm getting this right). So how about renaming the orb of fire to orb of magma (or lava). Still fire damage but delivered in a physical form. And the orb of cold could still be called the same but you could conjure cold air (air is still a physical thing it just doesn't have alot of mass or density).

Don't realy know about the electricity and sonic orbs though.

Dang you beat me to it, I was waiting for like half a page to get to the end of the thread before posting.

Heat = fire = lava (deadly)
Cold = ice = ice (not so harmful normally)
Electricity = static electricity = stuff you can pull out the air/clouds/tumble dried pants in winter
Acid = stuff from extreme natural environments (acid harmful enough to hurt you on contact is actually really rare in nature)

It is perfectly reasonable to conjure those 4 elements from somewhere else on the material plane. If you want to start incorporating realism then having the orbs as conjuration actually make a great deal of sense. You conjure up a glob of magma, and have it tossed at the opponent, it only has to touch to effect the opponent.
What is the problem here!?
Oh yeah still haven't come up with a good explanation for conjuring sonic - maybe you conjure up the center of a thunderclap? Noise is just moving particles.
igi

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

ignimbrite78 wrote:


Oh yeah still haven't come up with a good explanation for conjuring sonic - maybe you conjure up the center of a thunderclap? Noise is just moving particles.
igi

Conjuration includes teleportation, so you could teleport away a large quantity of air, creating a vaccuum contained in the orb. When the orb bursts, air rushes to fill the vaccuum and creates a sonic blast.

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / The new book says you can do what? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.