| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen some people that claim a problem with certain spells, however it is generally from a lack of knowledge about how the spell works, or lack of consideration about how other spells of the same level work in comparison.
I still think Launch Bolt is far too good as an at-will cantrip. :)
LMAO, just checking how many replies it takes for the first wave of knee-jerking to arrive. IBTL!
P.D: I have nothing against the book, but these forums aren't the best place to ask about it.
Some spells from Spell Compendium are really more powerful than equivalent in ogl. But not more than any other optional books like complete series and such.
Some are good, some are too good, but there is some interesting ones.
Getting serious. The problem with using SC in PF is that it was written taking the SRD's spells as standard... and being PF's spell list a (considerably)watered-down version of the SRD's, then nearly -every- spell in the SC is gonig to be crazy-powerful when benchmarked with PF's.
I know if I played a PFPRG caster and my GM brought the SC to the table I'd just drop my previous spellbook in the nearest garbage can in order to replenish it with all-around better spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
nearly -every- spell in the SC is gonig to be crazy-powerful when benchmarked with PF's.
Not at all true, actually. Most of the SC is actually weaker than 3.5 core.
Yeah. But the book isn't almost entirely SoD/SoS, so I stand by my assertion that "nearly every" spell in the book wouldn't dramatically overpower the spells in PF Core.
Excepting the SoD/SoS's that you'd have to nerf ala PF.
...and the durations you'd have to nerf from minutes to rounds ala PF, and the shape-shifting spells you'd have to one-dimensionalize ala PF, and...
Something I find particularly amusing is the Amanuensis cantrip. With infinite cantrips in PF, all you need to do is train up an INT 10 or CHA 10 wizards/sorcerer, give them that spell, and you've invalidated the need to develop a printing press - they can photocopy pages of books with ease.
Honestly, I actually like that result. It helps justify and explain the fact that everyone in the Pathfinder universe is literate - books are plentiful and relatively cheap. It also explains the general prevalence of libraries and such that most D&D worlds take as an assumption. I'm planning on making it a cornerstone of my world.
|
Yeah. But the book isn't almost entirely SoD/SoS, so I stand by my assertion that "nearly every" spell in the book wouldn't dramatically overpower the spells in PF Core.
I wasn't correcting you. Hence my use of 'exceptions'. If the exceptions are the majority they become the rule, no?
And actually, I wouldn't really change anything in the SC, but that's probably because I favor the 3.5 versions anyway. So I doubt I'll be using the PF versions outside of a playtest PF-only campaign.
...and the durations you'd have to nerf from minutes to rounds ala PF,
Why would you have to do that? I havn't studied the PF spell list in detail, but I can't think of any spells that dropped from minutes to rounds. Not saying there aren't any, just that I can't think of any off the top of my head.
and the shape-shifting spells you'd have to one-dimensionalize ala PF, and...
Every shapeshift spell in SC is already one-dimensional. They all give you a very specific creature or small set of creatures you can transform into. Same with the summoning spells.
I think you need to refresh your memory of the Spell Compendium.
There are plenty of people who believe that the Spell Compendium caused havok in their regular 3.5 game, so expect the same issue with a PF game.
One thing I noticed after I added it to my 3.5 games, it's too good for Clerics and Druids. Wizards and Sorcerers have naturally limited spell lists, but whole list casters gain a lot by any book that adds to their list. I would recommend limiting the number of spells clerics and druids can add to their spell lists.
Since most of the spells in the Spell Compendium were pulled from the Complete line of books and other WotC books, I'd be amused if they were more powerful than the spells in the Complete series. I did hear that most of them got NERFed rather than buffed when they were lifted for the SC.
Well, Phantasmal Assailants sure wasn't nerfed. It's a 2nd level spell that went from dishing out 4 points of Int and Dex damage (save for half) in Complete Arcane to 8 points each in the Spell Compendium. That's a lot for a 2nd level spell.
Caveat Emptor should be the watchword for dealing with the Spell Compendium.
It's actually got two saves; will for none, fort for half. And it can be turned back on the caster, although it's rather unlikely to happen.
Since most of the spells in the Spell Compendium were pulled from the Complete line of books and other WotC books, I'd be amused if they were more powerful than the spells in the Complete series. I did hear that most of them got NERFed rather than buffed when they were lifted for the SC.
Indeed. Lot of spells were rebalanced for Spell Compendium, something which wasn't done when including 3.0 spells in the Complete Books line.
But there is still some spells which are really more powerful than core ones.
Without a doubt there's really powerful ones and ones that are fine in theory but just under-priced (improvisation is another needs-a-level-bump one). Most of the book, however, is roughly on par with Pathfinder, in my estimation.
Evasculate can go f itself.
I am not allowing the Spell Compendium. However, I have told my guys they are welcome to develop new spells if they want, so if they lift a spell from that book, I can judge it on a spell-by-spell basis and nerf whatever I feel needs to be nerfed.
The big reason I don't run open book policy and in particular with Spell Compendium is because it waters down the core roles of the classes and magic schools (and to a lesser extent domains). Lots of druid and cleric blasting spells, tons of non-evocation blasting spells. Part of the balance of the classes is based on limiting spellcasting classes or schools to their core roles. When you spread those roles out so that all casters get them suddenly that limit to the casters power is no longer there.
As an example when talking about Wild Shape I often here "Well druids have such a crappy spell list, they need wild shape to be pretty awesome". With spell compendium druids spell list is much more flexible and overall more powerful.
Neither of these issues are new with Pathfinder. I'm sure if you have a wide open book policy under 3.5 that same wide open policy will not effect your game under pathfinder much at all.
Playing a druid in a Beta game using some stuff from the Spell Compendium, I don't find the spells in there really any better for offense. I typically just wildshape into an elephant and trample things, rather than worrying about my comparatively paltry spell effects.
Though I do make heavy use of the Bite of X spells on my Lion animal companion, making him a veritable god. Truly, the druid is the lion's companion...
Playing a druid in a Beta game using some stuff from the Spell Compendium, I don't find the spells in there really any better for offense. I typically just wildshape into an elephant and trample things, rather than worrying about my comparatively paltry spell effects.
Though I do make heavy use of the Bite of X spells on my Lion animal companion, making him a veritable god. Truly, the druid is the lion's companion...
Bite of X spells are awesome... as are the Snakes Swiftness spells. Give everyone in the party an extra attack right now? Yeah it doesn't stack with haste but it's a second level spell and you can cast it in the surprise round and give them an attack when they wouldn't have one. Also, if you cast it in the surprise round no one in your party is flat footed after that point.
Evasculate can go f itself.
I am not allowing the Spell Compendium. However, I have told my guys they are welcome to develop new spells if they want, so if they lift a spell from that book, I can judge it on a spell-by-spell basis and nerf whatever I feel needs to be nerfed.
Why not just do that for the Spell Compendium instead of banning the entire book. Every book has something broken in it. By your logic the game should not even be played. If I was a player in your game I would just use the SC, and change the name of the spells "I developed". After you let me have 5 or 6 spells we would need to have a chat, away from the table of course. Yes its underhanded to do that, but that is a valid response to a heavy handed tactic.
Playing a druid in a Beta game using some stuff from the Spell Compendium, I don't find the spells in there really any better for offense. I typically just wildshape into an elephant and trample things, rather than worrying about my comparatively paltry spell effects.
Though I do make heavy use of the Bite of X spells on my Lion animal companion, making him a veritable god. Truly, the druid is the lion's companion...
Even in the final version the big cats are the obvious choice. Pounce, improved grab, rake, whats not to like. :)
Evasculate can go f itself.
I am not allowing the Spell Compendium. However, I have told my guys they are welcome to develop new spells if they want, so if they lift a spell from that book, I can judge it on a spell-by-spell basis and nerf whatever I feel needs to be nerfed.
Why not just do that for the Spell Compendium instead of banning the entire book. Every book has something broken in it. By your logic the game should not even be played. If I was a player in your game I would just use the SC, and change the name of the spells "I developed". After you let me have 5 or 6 spells we would need to have a chat, away from the table of course. Yes its underhanded to do that, but that is a valid response to a heavy handed tactic.
Of course, this is why I started the thread that originally spawned this thread, to discuss if there was some merit to just allowing these spells in the campaign as "researched" spells, so that they could be judged on a case by case basis and to slow the flow of new material into the game.
Unfortunately, since the Beta playtest people have been a lot more interested in jumping into discussions of whether something is broken or not rather than discussing how to run a campaign or what makes GMs or PCs uncomfortable about various options, etc.
Unfortunately, since the Beta playtest people have been a lot more interested in jumping into discussions of whether something is broken or not rather than discussing how to run a campaign or what makes GMs or PCs uncomfortable about various options, etc.
I take the blame for derailing your thread, sorry about that. Catch up with me at Paizocon or NeonCon and I'll buy you a beer.
Why not just do that for the Spell Compendium instead of banning the entire book. Every book has something broken in it. By your logic the game should not even be played. If I was a player in your game I would just use the SC, and change the name of the spells "I developed". After you let me have 5 or 6 spells we would need to have a chat, away from the table of course. Yes its underhanded to do that, but that is a valid response to a heavy handed tactic.Evasculate can go f itself.
I am not allowing the Spell Compendium. However, I have told my guys they are welcome to develop new spells if they want, so if they lift a spell from that book, I can judge it on a spell-by-spell basis and nerf whatever I feel needs to be nerfed.
That's what I meant. Their characters can "make" spells from the compendium, but I'd have to judge them on a case by case basis.
What you consider heavy-handed, I see as keeping control of the game to avoid it falling into a death spiral. I'm the DM. It's my job.
Why not just do that for the Spell Compendium instead of banning the entire book. Every book has something broken in it. By your logic the game should not even be played. If I was a player in your game I would just use the SC, and change the name of the spells "I developed". After you let me have 5 or 6 spells we would need to have a chat, away from the table of course. Yes its underhanded to do that, but that is a valid response to a heavy handed tactic.
This is more or less what he said : "so if they lift a spell from that book, I can judge it on a spell-by-spell basis"
PS: I'm certain it's accidental but posting with more than one alias in a thread makes it look like you have a sock puppet
I take the blame for derailing your thread, sorry about that. Catch up with me at Paizocon or NeonCon and I'll buy you a beer.
Oh, not a problem. It made perfect sense to break this out into a new topic, as well, I just think its worth noting that the "broke or not broke" aspect of the conversation is what gets the attention these days.
PS: I'm certain it's accidental but posting with more than one alias in a thread makes it look like you have a sock puppet
Me not agree 100% with what KEJR says . . .
oooooh, me likey. *yoink*Something I find particularly amusing is the Amanuensis cantrip. With infinite cantrips in PF, all you need to do is train up an INT 10 or CHA 10 wizards/sorcerer, give them that spell, and you've invalidated the need to develop a printing press - they can photocopy pages of books with ease.
Honestly, I actually like that result. It helps justify and explain the fact that everyone in the Pathfinder universe is literate - books are plentiful and relatively cheap. It also explains the general prevalence of libraries and such that most D&D worlds take as an assumption. I'm planning on making it a cornerstone of my world.
Thanks. It was one of the first things I noticed when Infinite Cantrips came up in the Beta. I plan on having an entire paragraph devoted to it in my CS write-up, because it's just so freaking obvious.
Of course, it also means that all those countries in Golarion tooting their horns over having printing presses really are kinda silly, since a first level wizard's doing it with no real problem.
Because the 1st level wizard would never get tired of doing this menial task when he can alter the forces of the universe if someone would let him get out of the local Nex Kinkos . . .
I don't buy that any wizard would sit around indefinitely to do this sort of work, at least not enough that they would replace the need for printing presses. I can see a wizard having his apprentice copy books for his personal use, but not a wizard sweat shop to mass produce books.
Sometimes I think there is a bit of a disconnect between being able to do something, according to the rules, and the reality of if something would be done in a given setting just because its possible.
Don't forget, anyone can run a printing press... only the spell caster can copy stuff with that cantrip. The wizard may not like what you are printing, charge too much, quit, etc al, like any other skilled labor would do.
So a printing press still has a lot of use.
|
Don't forget, anyone can run a printing press... only the spell caster can copy stuff with that cantrip. The wizard may not like what you are printing, charge too much, quit, etc al, like any other skilled labor would do.
So a printing press still has a lot of use.
I guess it only costs 900gp to create an item that can cast amanuensis at will and can be used by anyone.
Why not just do that for the Spell Compendium instead of banning the entire book. Every book has something broken in it. By your logic the game should not even be played. If I was a player in your game I would just use the SC, and change the name of the spells "I developed". After you let me have 5 or 6 spells we would need to have a chat, away from the table of course. Yes its underhanded to do that, but that is a valid response to a heavy handed tactic.Evasculate can go f itself.
I am not allowing the Spell Compendium. However, I have told my guys they are welcome to develop new spells if they want, so if they lift a spell from that book, I can judge it on a spell-by-spell basis and nerf whatever I feel needs to be nerfed.
That's what I meant. Their characters can "make" spells from the compendium, but I'd have to judge them on a case by case basis.
What you consider heavy-handed, I see as keeping control of the game to avoid it falling into a death spiral. I'm the DM. It's my job.
Ok, when most people say they banned something it meant the entire book may as well be locked away in a closet. I understand now.
I could have made my point more clearly, that's for sure.
I could have made my point more clearly, that's for sure.
Basically what you said is what I was thinking of trying out in my campaign, in the other thread where I was talking about this. Its on the PCs to spend the gold, and you can review the spell on a case by case basis, instead of having a whole book worth at once, if I understand what you were saying.
I could have made my point more clearly, that's for sure.
I am not allowing the Spell Compendium. However, I have told my guys they are welcome to develop new spells if they want, so if they lift a spell from that book, I can judge it on a spell-by-spell basis and nerf whatever I feel needs to be nerfed.
I missed the entire bolded area when I read it. I hate that because it upsets me when others only catch part of what I wrote.
Sorry about that.
If you do use spell compendium, watch out for those orb spells (orb of ...) and other ranged touch spells like bolt of glory. Hitting a touch AC is usually damn easy, they have no spell resistance and no save, so they can be real nasty. If I let them in my game again I'd wouldn't allow them to be immune to spell resistance.
I do that, I allow the orb spells but SR does count vs them.
I guess it only costs 900gp to create an item that can cast amanuensis at will and can be used by anyone.Don't forget, anyone can run a printing press... only the spell caster can copy stuff with that cantrip. The wizard may not like what you are printing, charge too much, quit, etc al, like any other skilled labor would do.
So a printing press still has a lot of use.
Sounds like a great business idea. So this spell alone, you figure modern morals must take, what 100 years in coming?
Womens sufferage! The time is now!
Oh, bother - they'd better get voting first, don't you think?
Yeah about that... it's a little harder I imagine to press chelaxia for example for more rights when they can simply have a devil (or hellknight really) really really bad things to you.
The USA got away mainly because it wasn't attached in the first place. That long ocean voyage really made things easier for the americans, if they had just been on the same continent keeping things under control would have been much easier for Britain (heck maybe not even necessary).
If you do use spell compendium, watch out for those orb spells (orb of ...) and other ranged touch spells like bolt of glory. Hitting a touch AC is usually damn easy, they have no spell resistance and no save, so they can be real nasty. If I let them in my game again I'd wouldn't allow them to be immune to spell resistance.
I don't have much of a problem with the orb spells... long as they're limited to spell lists that are, otherwise, limited on fight ending spells. They work great for the warmage. Gives the character a reliable source of damage output, which he needs, not having much in the way of utility or save or die spells.
But on the wizard/sorcerer list? No.
If you do use spell compendium, watch out for those orb spells (orb of ...) and other ranged touch spells like bolt of glory. Hitting a touch AC is usually damn easy, they have no spell resistance and no save, so they can be real nasty. If I let them in my game again I'd wouldn't allow them to be immune to spell resistance.I don't have much of a problem with the orb spells... long as they're limited to spell lists that are, otherwise, limited on fight ending spells. They work great for the warmage. Gives the character a reliable source of damage output, which he needs, not having much in the way of utility or save or die spells.
But on the wizard/sorcerer list? No.
My big bone on those spells is that they are conjuration spells and no SR. Should be evocation and with SR and they would be fine.
If you do use spell compendium, watch out for those orb spells (orb of ...) and other ranged touch spells like bolt of glory. Hitting a touch AC is usually damn easy, they have no spell resistance and no save, so they can be real nasty. If I let them in my game again I'd wouldn't allow them to be immune to spell resistance.
I like them better than AoE because they only affect one person. They are also negated by concealment. You cant target what you can't see. Energy resistance, or protection from energy, both low level spells also helps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My big bone on those spells is that they are conjuration spells and no SR. Should be evocation and with SR and they would be underpowered.
Fixed it for you.
My big bone on those spells is that they are conjuration spells and no SR. Should be evocation and with SR and they would be fine.
The evoker's weak enough. I have to put in with the folks who say all the energy types and such CAN create imbalance in a game.
I once played a one-time game with a group. We pre-rolled 20th level characters, but I didn't have the SC, and went with core spells for my wizard.
The sorcerer, with the SC spells I'd never heard of, made it so I didn't even have to be there. That stuff is powerful. If you're cool with it, enjoy.
I again played with a group that advised me to take "legion's fire shield," a fire shield you could cast on your whole party. The DM got tired of us doing that, and, after we considered maybe making it higher level, or nerfing it in some other way, just tossed it and I chose another spell for my sorcerer.
He blew s&@t up! Not weak at all, even with just core magic. He was built as a blaster and destroyed tons of monsters, particularly the big stupid ones that would have eviscerated the fighter without some ranged damage.