|
All that matters is that people understand it cuts both ways. If a PC can cast some nasty spell, so can the bad guys.
When I run 3.5/PF games, the only stuff that's not allowed at my table is disallowed for flavor/concept reasons, not balance reasons. I don't allow Psionics because it doesn't fit in with my view of fantasy roleplaying. I don't allow Book of 9 Swords because it's like "4e Light", and because it's cumbersome and tedious and I just frankly don't like it. That's pretty much about it. If it's published WotC or Paizo stuff, it's allowed.
It's worth noting that WotC themselves seem to think that Mage Armor is an abjuration. Just look at Complete Mage's Abjurant Champion, who gets the ability that all their abjuration spells are extended, and then proceeds to follow that up by calling out that abjurant champions rely on Mage Armor and Shield spells instead of normal armor.
Mage Armor as Conjuration isn't a huge problem for me, but it's not like it doesn't also fit in Abjuration. I could see it being in both schools, actually, but I'd be inclined to reverse it - shield in Conjuration (shorter duration = less good at protection), mage armor in Abjuration (longer duration = better at protection).
All that matters is that people understand it cuts both ways. If a PC can cast some nasty spell, so can the bad guys.
When I run 3.5/PF games, the only stuff that's not allowed at my table is disallowed for flavor/concept reasons, not balance reasons. I don't allow Psionics because it doesn't fit in with my view of fantasy roleplaying. I don't allow Book of 9 Swords because it's like "4e Light", and because it's cumbersome and tedious and I just frankly don't like it. That's pretty much about it. If it's published WotC or Paizo stuff, it's allowed.
Those are, ironically, my favorite 3.5 books. I find they both bring a lot to my games that I enjoy heartily.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It's worth noting that WotC themselves seem to think that Mage Armor is an abjuration. Just look at Complete Mage's Abjurant Champion, who gets the ability that all their abjuration spells are extended, and then proceeds to follow that up by calling out that abjurant champions rely on Mage Armor and Shield spells instead of normal armor.
Mage Armor as Conjuration isn't a huge problem for me, but it's not like it doesn't also fit in Abjuration. I could see it being in both schools, actually, but I'd be inclined to reverse it - shield in Conjuration (shorter duration = less good at protection), mage armor in Abjuration (longer duration = better at protection).
I think it's more accurate: "It's worth noting that WotC's proofreading went downhill the closer 4.x release date came."
I think it's more accurate: "It's worth noting that WotC's proofreading went downhill the closer 4.x release date came."
Their proofreading/editing went down hill pretty early on, comparatively, in all honesty.
Doesn't mean that a PrC focused on abjurations seemed to think that Mage Armor counted...
How many save for half damage spells can you find in the core rulebook that require an attack role? Touch spell typically means no save look at scorching ray, enervation, vampiric touch, etc. Save for half means you got out of the way of the main blast of the fireball(insert desired area spell here) Touch means he nailed you with the ray etc.
Yes I understand the normal mechanics
Well how about Ray of Enfeeblement, and why? because it was too strong for it's level and the "Ray" has been around a long time.
Spells in the Spell Compendium [and a hundred other WotC splat books] have not been fully tested, and therefore need to be carefully considered before being allowed in a game.
Personally, I don't want a load of metagaming munchkins, but YMMV.
Also it does say in the Magic Chapters that spells can be researched, so as in a game I am in at the moment, I would ask th GM to approve the research of a specific spell not in the core before adding it to a list.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ray of Stupidity vs. animals, or anything else with low Int for that matter.
Ray of stupidity vs. Editors? *ducks*
The problem with the Ray of stupidity can be summed up in one word. "Damage" If it did a penalty then a) it wouldn't double on a crit, since it's 'penalty' and not 'damage'. And b) the spell then couldn't drop the intelligence down to zero. No more taking down a CR 8 Smilodon with one 2nd level spell.
Spells in the Spell Compendium [and a hundred other WotC splat books] have not been fully tested, and therefore need to be carefully considered before being allowed in a game.
And? So was 3/4's of core. If they actually playtested spells like polymorph and the druid's wildshape 3.5 would have substaincially less problems.
In fact, that's my usual response when someone talks about non-core stuff being overpowering, it's "Well...it's not as broken as XY or Z, and that's core".
|
Ray of Stupidity vs. animals, or anything else with low Int for that matter.Ray of stupidity vs. Editors? *ducks*
The problem with the Ray of stupidity can be summed up in one word. "Damage" If it did a penalty then a) it wouldn't double on a crit, since it's 'penalty' and not 'damage'. And b) the spell then couldn't drop the intelligence down to zero. No more taking down a CR 8 Smilodon with one 2nd level spell.
Aaaand because the RoS shows how low the editing standard of SC was, it is a good enough argument for me to keep in a strictly case-by-case basis.
How many save for half damage spells can you find in the core rulebook that require an attack role? Touch spell typically means no save look at scorching ray, enervation, vampiric touch, etc. Save for half means you got out of the way of the main blast of the fireball(insert desired area spell here) Touch means he nailed you with the ray etc.Yes I understand the normal mechanics
Well how about Ray of Enfeeblement, and why? because it was too strong for it's level and the "Ray" has been around a long time.
Spells in the Spell Compendium [and a hundred other WotC splat books] have not been fully tested, and therefore need to be carefully considered before being allowed in a game.
Personally, I don't want a load of metagaming munchkins, but YMMV.
Ray of enfeeblement by itself isn't too powerful. It was the fact that in 3.5 you could empower it and take 16 str off a dragon at level 10 with no save. at level one dropping an enemy str by 4(ave roll) is about on par with what a cleric can do to an enemies attack/damage and if you roll great you can drop it by 7. If you look at damage dealing touch spells unless there is a secondary effect there is typically no save. You nerf the spellcaster even more if you say "step 1. cast your spell and make sure you don't lose concentration. Step 2 hit monk's/rogue's touch AC, step 3. Roll that SR, Step 4, "monk roll that save throw) step 5. I know you hit him square in the chest.. but he just evaded it, no damage"
And? So was 3/4's of core. If they actually playtested spells like polymorph and the druid's wildshape 3.5 would have substaincially less problems.
In fact, that's my usual response when someone talks about non-core stuff being overpowering, it's "Well...it's not as broken as XY or Z, and that's core".
You want to argue over where the broken stuff is!
Ok, yes a few problems did exist pre-pathfinder, which is why we now have pathfinder [yay!].
The thread is about the Spell Compendium, which does contain some unbalanced material, my advice... use with caution!
Ray of enfeeblement by itself isn't too powerful.
Well evidentially Jason disagrees with that.
Also it does say in the Magic Chapters that spells can be researched, so as in a game I am in at the moment, I would ask th GM to approve the research of a specific spell not in the core before adding it to a list.
Good option, that way the DM can have a look-see first and judge whether Hobinta should have access to it, rather than open up a whole can of Age of Worms!
Ray of enfeeblement by itself isn't too powerful.Well evidentially Jason disagrees with that.
Thank God we're in America then huh.. well I am I guess this is the internet.
Thank God we're in America then huh.. well I am I guess this is the internet.
The internet. It's like no other country I've ever seen! XD
On a more harmonious note, I appreciate the thoughtful discussions I find here every day. The suggestion to allow SC and other splatbook spells, possibly modified, as researched spells for characters who really want them has good roleplay potential and a Wis score of 36.
Nor do I. Your character can grow and experience the game world, and during that process become a great example of his chosen class/classes.
Personally, I don't want a load of metagaming munchkins, but YMMV.I know I REAAAAALLLLY should just look the other way and not take this bait... but I'm just not that strong.
Personally, I don't want to play with a GM who expects me to play some hapless imbecile who doesn't endeavor to become a stronger adventurer and learn to achieve more in the world and better protect those close to me.
It goes both ways Stuart. Your 'metagaming munchkins' are my realistic tactical adventurers trying to be the best they can be.
Yes it does. I'm looking for realistic character development. I don't want every 1st level player at the table quoting from the monster manual!
I'm happy for PC's to play smart, as long as it's within what's realistic for their characters INT score. I'm happy for players to max out their knowledge scores to identify the difficulties of each encounter. As long as they pass that check and don't use out-of-game info.You spend your stat points to create what character you want to play. I'm just asking for those stat points to actually mean something!
In short, play the character with the character's abilities and knowledge not your own.
Looks like I may have misunderstood you Stu. In the context of the post I partially quoted you were discussing the spells in the spell compendium and your players being 'powergaming munckins' because they wanted to make what I would consider wise spell choices.
Sorry if I came off abrasive,
No problem dude. I may have come over a little strong!
The "wise spell choices" that you mention, in my experience, are usually the ones that need a little caution before being unleashed into a game. Not to say that they are broken, just, in many cases, more powerful than the average. I do play too, so I've been on both sides in this situation. As a player I want the best options but being a DM has made me realize that some of those spell are broken and I have to say no to them and not pick them when I play even if the DM is happy with them. It's just the way I am now [determined to not meta-game if at all possible] even though I appreciate it's impossible to eliminate completely.
We all have our pet hates in D&D and we all use our own set of Houserules. I think that's fine as long as everyone is having fun!
Peace
That's the damage caps at work. A 4th level spell can have higher damage than a 3rd.while I can not seem to find anywhere it spell out damage cap/level you seem to be correct with core. That being the case it is in line with a 4th level spell meaning you'll be using 7d6 damage at lest, so it is fine as a 4th level spell as really in core ya have shout or ice storm at 4th level, both which are area so I am ok with this being 4th level, shug if someone thinks it's weak well then don't take it
The DMG has spell damage cap information. AFAIK, it has not been superceded or changed in Pathfinder.
|
|
It's worth noting that WotC themselves seem to think that Mage Armor is an abjuration. Just look at Complete Mage's Abjurant Champion, who gets the ability that all their abjuration spells are extended, and then proceeds to follow that up by calling out that abjurant champions rely on Mage Armor and Shield spells instead of normal armor.
Mage Armor as Conjuration isn't a huge problem for me, but it's not like it doesn't also fit in Abjuration. I could see it being in both schools, actually, but I'd be inclined to reverse it - shield in Conjuration (shorter duration = less good at protection), mage armor in Abjuration (longer duration = better at protection).
Ugh; I had not noticed before that mage armor is a con(cre)[force] spell. It would be legitimate as an abj [force], but my take is that it belongs in evo [force] alongside wall of force. (Fire shield, which has a similar effect to mage armor, but defending the target with fire or cold energy instead of force, is also an evo spell.)
Fire shield is in no way comparable in effect or intent to mage armor.
Mage armor should have been in (and fits perfectly within) the abjuration school. Quite a few abjuration spells involve force, including the mechanically very very similar shield spell.
|
|
Ugh; I had not noticed before that mage armor is a con(cre)[force] spell. It would be legitimate as an abj [force], but my take is that it belongs in evo [force] alongside wall of force. (Fire shield, which has a similar effect to mage armor, but defending the target with fire or cold energy instead of force, is also an evo spell.)It's worth noting that WotC themselves seem to think that Mage Armor is an abjuration. Just look at Complete Mage's Abjurant Champion, who gets the ability that all their abjuration spells are extended, and then proceeds to follow that up by calling out that abjurant champions rely on Mage Armor and Shield spells instead of normal armor.
Mage Armor as Conjuration isn't a huge problem for me, but it's not like it doesn't also fit in Abjuration. I could see it being in both schools, actually, but I'd be inclined to reverse it - shield in Conjuration (shorter duration = less good at protection), mage armor in Abjuration (longer duration = better at protection).
I think the reason they didn't want mage armor as an abjuration spell was so that back in the 2nd ed days where your oposed school was based off your specialist school not your choice, whatever school it was that had abjuration as an oposed school wouldn't be completely hosed in the defense department. I could be wrong, but this at least is how it worked in baldur's gate which is based off of second ed rules. I actually like your solutions, if you still couldn't cast spells off of your opposed school I would have made it Evo, but since now you can, I think I'm gonna make it abjuration like it's supposed to be. Regardless, it should never have been conjuration.
|
|
Fire shield is in no way comparable in effect or intent to mage armor.
Mage armor should have been in (and fits perfectly within) the abjuration school. Quite a few abjuration spells involve force, including the mechanically very very similar shield spell.
I would say that the case that mage armor should be an abjuration, and the case that it should be an evocation, are about equally good, and both are better than the case that it should be a conjuration.
|
|
I would say that some of this illustrates that the schools are pretty daft in selection and organisation and were back in 1e where they were irrelevant; that they have been given such importance in 3e is unfortunate. It's the least explicable thing in the magic system, pretty much.
As for the Orb spells mentioned earlier, I personally think that they show us what evocation should have been, to wit, immune to spell resistance when the evocation in question deals with an element or the like, and capped higher for damage (or better, not at all). The problem isn't with orbs, it's with evocation and the general emasculation of the blaster mage (who can be a lot of fun to play but falls behind the curve as hit points of opponents increase much more than they did in 1/2e). In my opinion, etc*.
I am somewhat ambivalent on 3e SR, too. It's a bit of a fun murderer, particularly as more and more of the opponents have it.
*But you can think of my opinion as being "truth" on the off-chance that you don't want to waste your time evaluating just how fantastically and brilliantly right I am.
|
|
I am somewhat ambivalent on 3e SR, too. It's a bit of a fun murderer, particularly as more and more of the opponents have it.
My biggest gripe with SR is that it makes most offensive spells require two rolls to determine success (before the damage roll) -- the "beat the SR" caster level check followed by either a touch attack roll or a saving throw. Additionally, the caster level check doesn't benefit from most of the general combat buffs like prayer.
I'm strongly considering house-ruling this so that SR will either be a special bonus to Touch AC versus offensive touch spells, or a special bonus to the saving throw to resist the spell -- in both cases, the bonus would be the standard SR - 10. Creatures with SR bonus who successfully save would take no damage from spells that normally deal half damage on successful saves (so as not to completely destroy one of the major benefits of SR). Offensive spells that have neither a touch attack roll nor a saving throw (I'm looking at you, magic missile) would require the standard caster level check.
I am somewhat ambivalent on 3e SR, too. It's a bit of a fun murderer, particularly as more and more of the opponents have it.My biggest gripe with SR is that it makes most offensive spells require two rolls to determine success (before the damage roll) -- the "beat the SR" caster level check followed by either a touch attack roll or a saving throw. Additionally, the caster level check doesn't benefit from most of the general combat buffs like prayer.
I'm strongly considering house-ruling this so that SR will either be a special bonus to Touch AC versus offensive touch spells, or a special bonus to the saving throw to resist the spell -- in both cases, the bonus would be the standard SR - 10. Creatures with SR bonus who successfully save would take no damage from spells that normally deal half damage on successful saves (so as not to completely destroy one of the major benefits of SR). Offensive spells that have neither a touch attack roll nor a saving throw (I'm looking at you, magic missile) would require the standard caster level check.
what would you do with spell penetration and greater spell pen? Reduce this bonus? You could then be actually applying penalties to the savingthrow or touch ac.
One thing I have toyed around with is the idea of when a divine spellcaster is "petitioning" for new (i.e. non-core) spells from his deity he must succeed in a diplomacy and Knowledge (religion) check with a divine representative. Not terribly different from requiring a Spellcraft/Knowledge (arcana) check from arcane casters, but it does establish a little bit of flavor.
Ooooh, I really, really like the flavor of this idea.