Spell Compendium - Balanced OK for Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I'm curious what people's thoughts would be on this. I haven't decided if I want to allow spells from that book or just keep to core.


you will get mixed opinions from this, there was a thread like this a while earlier. I would honestly take it case by case. Some spells should be altered to match what was changed in pathfinder. Others are probably ok. It just depends on how you tend to play. I personally like more options for spells, but i know others will disagree.

Edit: Found the previous thread.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/archives/theSpellCompendiumDoesItFitSmoothlyIntoCorePFPlay


drbuzzard wrote:
I'm curious what people's thoughts would be on this. I haven't decided if I want to allow spells from that book or just keep to core.

As a whole I would say no.

There are many spells that are unballanced and that are a product of the splatbook inflation in 3.5.

As stated above it should however be looked at on a case by case basis. Things like polymorphing effects have changed a lot in PF while others have not and you should take time to compare the compendium spells with what is already in the PRG. If you make sure they are evenly matched it will brobably work fine in PF. I for one would be very hesitant to let my players use old 3.5 material. In my campaign it is PRPG and PF material only at this point and 3.5 material will be admitted on a case by case, never as whole volumes.


Just as important as judging each spell on a case by case basis is throttling how many spells clerics and druids can add to their lists. Being able to prep from any spell on a long list is a pretty significant power - add a lot to that, even with individual spells that may be OK, and you can see a pretty significant expansion of power. By contrast, characters that have a limited list of known spells or have spells that must be bought and put into a spellbook control this problem naturally.


Agreed.. spells like Energy Immunity comes to mind... Oi-veh


Bill Dunn wrote:
Just as important as judging each spell on a case by case basis is throttling how many spells clerics and druids can add to their lists. Being able to prep from any spell on a long list is a pretty significant power - add a lot to that, even with individual spells that may be OK, and you can see a pretty significant expansion of power. By contrast, characters that have a limited list of known spells or have spells that must be bought and put into a spellbook control this problem naturally.

A bit OT, I know, but this makes for a nice little house-rule of "Prayer" Books" for Clerics/Druids.

Set aside a list of universal spells that are automatically in the book, as well as the clerics domain spells. Otherwise, treat spell acquasition the same as a Wiz.


drbuzzard wrote:
I'm curious what people's thoughts would be on this. I haven't decided if I want to allow spells from that book or just keep to core.

In my opinion, each spell should be judged on its own merits; whether you're playing 3.0, 3.5 or Pathfinder is mostly irrelevant.


Kolokotroni wrote:

you will get mixed opinions from this, there was a thread like this a while earlier. I would honestly take it case by case. Some spells should be altered to match what was changed in pathfinder. Others are probably ok. It just depends on how you tend to play. I personally like more options for spells, but i know others will disagree.

Edit: Found the previous thread.

link

Sovereign Court

No, the most powerful spells that came out of 3.5 were in that book. 1st level divination spells that emulated high level feats, irresistible medium range damage spells that work through anti-magic, and more cheese then you'll find on a dairy farm.


Hell, it wasn't balanced for 3.5.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Three words, ray of stupidity.


The most unbalanced spells in 3.5 were in the Players Handbook.

However, there is no doubt that spell inflation increases versatility that in turn increases power.

So if you allow the Spell Compendium - be aware you just gave spellcasters a HUGE boost and gave the non-spellcasters absolutely nothing.

Furthermore, also note that the SC saw the begginning of the onslaught of swift and immediate action spells. These also add a new dynamic to the game (and again increase the power of spellcasters) which needs to be carefully considered.


It pretty much has to be case-by-case. There's stuff in the Spell Compendium that's perfectly fine and handy (*Huggles the Vigor line.*), and there's stuff in there that's ill-conceived and broken as all get out that should never be allowed at all (Consumptive Field).

Though the exact same could be said of the core rulebook.

Morgen wrote:
No, the most powerful spells that came out of 3.5 were in that book. 1st level divination spells that emulated high level feats, irresistible medium range damage spells that work through anti-magic, and more cheese then you'll find on a dairy farm.

I really don't see why you keep going off on the orbs. Yes, they shoot into an antimagic field. That's not a bad thing. The AMF is not a game-balancer in any capacity. It's just a big, glowing sign that says to the mage, "Screw you, you're not allowed to play." It's a bad idea from the outset, and that a mage might have a crappy spell that can still do something when faced with that bad idea is, if anything, a good thing.

There's some messed up stuff in the Spell Compendium, but to harp on the orbs and Guided Shot just seems to be silly and lack any sort of perspective on what power really is in the system.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

drbuzzard wrote:
I'm curious what people's thoughts would be on this. I haven't decided if I want to allow spells from that book or just keep to core.

I allowed pretty much everything from every WotC book (including ToB) for a while.

There are only two things I wished didn't exist and only one thing I pulled back on allowing before switching to 3.p rules.

I eventually made all Maneuver classes (and Martial Study feat) unavailable.

I wanted to make all Orb spells unavailable but never did. I dislike the proliferation of "SR doesn't matter" spells.


Viletta Vadim wrote:

It pretty much has to be case-by-case. There's stuff in the Spell Compendium that's perfectly fine and handy (*Huggles the Vigor line.*), and there's stuff in there that's ill-conceived and broken as all get out that should never be allowed at all (Consumptive Field).

Though the exact same could be said of the core rulebook.

Morgen wrote:
No, the most powerful spells that came out of 3.5 were in that book. 1st level divination spells that emulated high level feats, irresistible medium range damage spells that work through anti-magic, and more cheese then you'll find on a dairy farm.

I really don't see why you keep going off on the orbs. Yes, they shoot into an antimagic field. That's not a bad thing. The AMF is not a game-balancer in any capacity. It's just a big, glowing sign that says to the mage, "Screw you, you're not allowed to play." It's a bad idea from the outset, and that a mage might have a crappy spell that can still do something when faced with that bad idea is, if anything, a good thing.

There's some messed up stuff in the Spell Compendium, but to harp on the orbs and Guided Shot just seems to be silly and lack any sort of perspective on what power really is in the system.

I really dont know why people got hung up on the orb spells either. Never made sense to me. Hell I personally think a mage should have SOME kind of option if someone throws up antimagic, i have never been a fan of the 'you dont get to play' methods as I believe you should ALWAYS try to include everyone in a combat. Like someone said there are much more powerful spells in the phb. I once had a dm who said that it was only the orbs he didnt like, and i said really? OK i'll take ray of stupidity instead and one shot all your animals and magical beasts. He changed his mind about the orbs after that, though grew a distaste for ray spells for some reason (sarcasm). Somehow doing fireball damage to a single target didnt seem all that powerful anymore.

I think its still silly to eliminate all the good spells that were in that book because of a few bad ones. I LOVE the transposition and slide spells, nothing quite like being the chessmaster of the battlefield, and there really isnt anything like it in the phb, as well as entice gift has made for some amazing moments in games.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

James Risner wrote:
I eventually made all Maneuver classes (and Martial Study feat) unavailable.

>:|

Anyway, Spell Compendium is a very spotty book. It republishes perfectly reasonable staples almost as old as 3e (Vigor line, Orbs, Nature's [foo] buffs), with random stupidity from Dragon magazine (the ray spells, goofy spells like Transmute Clothes To Dust...I mean, Miasma of Ages). Everything in it should be on a by-approval-only basis, but the default answer should be "Yes" because it's about 90% good stuff.

And the Orbs should be banned because no wizard or sorcerer in their right mind should be casting spells that do Xd6 damage.


Viletta Vadim wrote:
There's some messed up stuff in the Spell Compendium, but to harp on the orbs and Guided Shot just seems to be silly and lack any sort of perspective on what power really is in the system.

The thing about the orb line of spells is how they make SR irrelevant. Assay Spell Resistance is another one too that makes SR virtually irrelevant.


A Man In Black wrote:
And the Orbs should be banned because no wizard or sorcerer in their right mind should be casting spells that do Xd6 damage.

Nonsense. With the right build, you can get X high enough through metamagic that it actually matters. Or even high enough that it's utterly obscene and can one-shot a great wyrm. Then again, Sorcerers do tend to be better at that sort of thing.

Pathos wrote:
The thing about the orb line of spells is how they make SR irrelevant. Assay Spell Resistance is another one too that makes SR virtually irrelevant.

While you could argue Assay Resistance, the orbs simply don't do anything core hasn't done already. Summons ignore spell resistance. Grease ignores spell resistance. Web, Wall of Stone/Iron, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Reverse Gravity, Forcecage. These are all the foundation of a Wizard's power, these are all core spells, yet they all ignore spell resistance.

The orbs are bad spells, for much the same reason Fireball is a bad spell. It's not a Wizard's job to do damage. It may be a secondary task at times, but rarely more on a well-played mage, simply because Wizards aren't very good at dealing damage. The Rogue can dish out gobs of damage with Sneak Attack all day. The Fighter can Power Attack until her hit points are all gone. The Druid is a bear-summoning bear with a bear companion. They are all better at dealing damage than the Wizard. And even when a Wizard does want to deal damage, summons are generally better at it.

The orbs are just so trivial as to be irrelevant. Just about all that can be said of 'em is that they work in an AMF, but that's a good thing.


Our group has always liked the non-magical damaging spells, and in essence we work on a basis that, if magical "defence" isn't what protects, then mundane defences do

in essence we work like this

an evocation-blast, say "Scorch". the blast of fire is magical all along its path - so, when it hits anti-magic it is stopped

orb of fire, on the other hand, is a damaging conjuration - the magic takes place to draw fire to the magicians hand, and hold it shaped long enough to throw. once its been thrown, it is perfectly "normal" superhot fire, at least normal for fire drawn from the deeps of the elemental planes. but, for all intents and purposes, it is mundane fire


to add, i think having played "Shadowrun" helps with the comparison. they had (at the time we played it - dont know if thats how it still works) two kinds of blast spells - Combat spells, and Damaging Manipulations

One hits them with magic "fire", the other magics up normal fire, then throws it at someone

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Viletta Vadim wrote:

orbs simply don't do anything core hasn't done already. Summons ignore spell resistance. Grease ignores spell resistance. Web, Wall of Stone/Iron, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Reverse Gravity, Forcecage.

The orbs are just so trivial as to be irrelevant.

Funny, how I run/play high level games (10th to 20th) and I entirely disagree with you.

Orbs from a proper sorcerer/warmage/wizard deal as much damage as any Rogue can deal and often similar to the most optimized Fighter/Paladin (100+ damage) which makes them far from irrelevant. Especially considering the spellcaster has far more than 8 spells a day (2 per encounter) and will never run out of approximately 100 damage spells a day that are no SR.

All the spells you name are pretty useless after a while:
Summons (unless you do your highest level they are nothing more than flanking generators)
Grease/Web (irrelevant after 7th level or so)
Walls (useful to separate monster, but damage is just as good)
MDisj (good against heavy item/spell users and nothing else)
Reverse Gravity (useless against most at that level since nothing more than annoyance)
Forcecage (useful but expensive)

The 30 or so people that play in the games I play use damaging spells, as they are more effective. I don't play low level games (below 10th) if I can help it and when I say damage I don't refer to save for half spells etc.


Pathos wrote:
The thing about the orb line of spells is how they make SR irrelevant. Assay Spell Resistance is another one too that makes SR virtually irrelevant.

This is a wacky argument considering about 1/2 the spells in the main book ignore SR too.

Better ban all the summoning spells - they ignore SR!!!

Silliness.


Viletta Vadim wrote:


I really don't see why you keep going off on the orbs.

My objections to the orb spells are purely aesthetic:

1) They should be evocation instead of conjuration (with the except of Acid Orb).
2) ALL spells that do energy damage should be "SR = no". And Orb of Force should be "SR = yes".


hogarth wrote:
Viletta Vadim wrote:


I really don't see why you keep going off on the orbs.

My objections to the orb spells are purely aesthetic:

1) They should be evocation instead of conjuration (with the except of Acid Orb).
2) ALL spells that do energy damage should be "SR = no". And Orb of Force should be "SR = yes".

This is pretty much my complaint about them also. Conjuration shouldn't be the school you take to be a good blaster.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Viletta Vadim wrote:
While you could argue Assay Resistance, the orbs simply don't do anything core hasn't done already. Summons ignore spell resistance. Grease ignores spell resistance. Web, Wall of Stone/Iron, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Reverse Gravity, Forcecage. These are all the foundation of a Wizard's power, these are all core spells, yet they all ignore spell resistance.

They ignore spell resistance because they do not directly affect any creature, nor do they do damage to a creature. The orb spells do do damage and ignore spell resistance.


Mistwalker wrote:
Viletta Vadim wrote:
While you could argue Assay Resistance, the orbs simply don't do anything core hasn't done already. Summons ignore spell resistance. Grease ignores spell resistance. Web, Wall of Stone/Iron, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Reverse Gravity, Forcecage. These are all the foundation of a Wizard's power, these are all core spells, yet they all ignore spell resistance.
They ignore spell resistance because they do not directly affect any creature, nor do they do damage to a creature.

Acid arrow.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Zurai wrote:
Acid arrow.

Yes, Acid Arrow and Acid Splash do exactly that. I can see conjuring acid and sending it along to attack the target. Magic summons the acid and wraps the acid to move it along to the target so that even if there is SR and it nullifies the magic moving the acid, it is too late as the mundane acid is already hitting the creature.

I have a lot more trouble seeing sending cold, fire, sound or force (why wouldn't SR kick in on at least this one?) As well, the Orb spells also require a save to avoid having a condition applied. Again upping the ante and power of the spell. I am not opposed to the spells in of themselves, but believe that for all of them except for acid, they should be evocation spells.


Orb of force shouldn't be a spell (EDIT: To clarify, it is out of place as a conjuration that summons "nonmagical force", and it has no place in evocation because there's about a billion magic missile variants that beat the tar out of it). I don't think anyone seriously disagrees with it being out of place as it currently exists. The rest are all possible in real life, so why shouldn't they be possible in a game with magic?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Okay, can we stop arguing about the orb spells now? Whether you ban them or not, the game impact is nearly nonexistent. If you want to help the OP, focus on other goofy stuff or other staple stuff in SC.


Viletta Vadim wrote:

It pretty much has to be case-by-case. There's stuff in the Spell Compendium that's perfectly fine and handy (*Huggles the Vigor line.*), and there's stuff in there that's ill-conceived and broken as all get out that should never be allowed at all (Consumptive Field).

Though the exact same could be said of the core rulebook.

Morgen wrote:
No, the most powerful spells that came out of 3.5 were in that book. 1st level divination spells that emulated high level feats, irresistible medium range damage spells that work through anti-magic, and more cheese then you'll find on a dairy farm.

I really don't see why you keep going off on the orbs. Yes, they shoot into an antimagic field. That's not a bad thing. The AMF is not a game-balancer in any capacity. It's just a big, glowing sign that says to the mage, "Screw you, you're not allowed to play." It's a bad idea from the outset, and that a mage might have a crappy spell that can still do something when faced with that bad idea is, if anything, a good thing.

There's some messed up stuff in the Spell Compendium, but to harp on the orbs and Guided Shot just seems to be silly and lack any sort of perspective on what power really is in the system.

Somehow I never noticed this spell before. It's a walking death zone, not even concentration you just cast it once, and take advantage of it.


James Risner wrote:
Viletta Vadim wrote:

orbs simply don't do anything core hasn't done already. Summons ignore spell resistance. Grease ignores spell resistance. Web, Wall of Stone/Iron, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Reverse Gravity, Forcecage.

The orbs are just so trivial as to be irrelevant.

Funny, how I run/play high level games (10th to 20th) and I entirely disagree with you.

Orbs from a proper sorcerer/warmage/wizard deal as much damage as any Rogue can deal and often similar to the most optimized Fighter/Paladin (100+ damage) which makes them far from irrelevant. Especially considering the spellcaster has far more than 8 spells a day (2 per encounter) and will never run out of approximately 100 damage spells a day that are no SR.

All the spells you name are pretty useless after a while:
Summons (unless you do your highest level they are nothing more than flanking generators)
Grease/Web (irrelevant after 7th level or so)
Walls (useful to separate monster, but damage is just as good)
MDisj (good against heavy item/spell users and nothing else)
Reverse Gravity (useless against most at that level since nothing more than annoyance)
Forcecage (useful but expensive)

The 30 or so people that play in the games I play use damaging spells, as they are more effective. I don't play low level games (below 10th) if I can help it and when I say damage I don't refer to save for half spells etc.

If your players are castings and using damaging spells you should be happy. Its when they stop caring about damage that encounters get wrecked. If you want to waste a spell trying to damage one enemy fine, have at it. Damage spells while fun*, are not considered suboptimal without reason.

*Some of us just like to roll dice.

Now I know every DM's gaming style is different, but that has nothing to do with the spell itself. A spell that does too much regardless of the gaming style is what I consider to be OP.

Wayfinders

I've allowed all Spell Compendium spells in our Pathfinder campaign, and so far it hasn't been a problem... but maybe I'm biased because NPCs use SC spells more often than the PCs do. Muahaha. But if it turns into a problem we'll deal with it. I've actually been pushing the PC bard to dig into the SC more.

Dark Archive

What it comes down to, is that non-full casters (bards, paladins, rangers, ect.) get more punch because of the expanded spell lists. All the other classes that are full casters, get even more power than they already had. Not really a case of fun there... So its win more for full casters as more is always better, and it makes the non-full casters decent.


James Hunnicutt wrote:
I've allowed all Spell Compendium spells in our Pathfinder campaign, and so far it hasn't been a problem... but maybe I'm biased because NPCs use SC spells more often than the PCs do. Muahaha.

In that case, I'd suggest to your players that they should put some points in Intelligence when they become level 4/8/12/16/20 Gamers (or Geeks, if they're leveling in that, instead) to make sure that they're as smart as your NPCs (and thus should know that they should be using the SC spells as often as the NPCs).

Or does real life use the Rolemaster system instead? It does seem pretty open-ended on damage charts, what with a supernova doing several trillion d20 in damage...


Shinmizu wrote:
Or does real life use the Rolemaster system instead? It does seem pretty open-ended on damage charts, what with a supernova doing several trillion d20 in damage...

Seems to work fine in a d20 system. Although colossal seems a bit small for the size. :-P

Supernova CR 2947

N Colossal Construct

Init -5; Senses none

Defense

AC 1, touch 1, flat-footed 1

hp 16288 (2947d10+80)

Defensive Abilities none

Offense

Speed 0 ft.

Ranged nova +2947 ranged 2947d6 (fire)

Statistics

Str 10, Dex 1, Con -, Int -, Wis 1, Cha 1

Base Atk +2947; CMB +2955; CMD 2965

Feats Ability Focus(nova) x982

Skills

Environment Outer space

Organization solitary

Treasure none

Nova(Ex): As a full round action, the nova may nova. This allows it to make a ranged touch attack against all creatures and objects within range. The range increment for the attack is 1 light year (31038479019028868 feet or 6207695803805774 squares) and the attack can be used to a maximum of 10 range increments. Creatures beyond 5 range increments make make a reflex save (DC 1483) for half damage. The save DC is strength based. After using this ability, the nova is transformed into a black hole.


Viletta Vadim wrote:


The orbs are bad spells, for much the same reason Fireball is a bad spell. It's not a Wizard's job to do damage. It may be a secondary task at times, but rarely more on a well-played mage, simply because Wizards aren't very good at dealing damage.

A spontaneous caster player in one of my games cast empowered Orb of Force and two regular Orb of Force every single turn, every single encounter, because that was by far the most efficient use of his spells. 35d6 damage isn't horrible by any standard, and when you do it completely without fear of your own safety (since you don't need to be close), and with very little chance of not hitting (since most foes don't have touch ACs in the 20s), there is no real reason to do anything else.


Are wrote:
A spontaneous caster player in one of my games cast empowered Orb of Force and two regular Orb of Force every single turn, every single encounter,

1) How is he casting 3 spells a turn? Unless you're playing Epic, there's no way to cast a standard action spell more than twice in a turn on average (1 standard action cast, 1 quickened cast; you could cast celerity to get an extra standard and cast again, but you'd give up your entire next turn to do so, so it's a net loss of average casts).

2) How is he getting that many 4th, 6th, and 8th level spells? Or, alternately, that many 4th level spells, free hands, and metamagic rods?


I'm actually unhappy with the spell compendium for things that seem innocuous that are actually quite annoying in a campaign. Things like the orb spells are easier to deal with (energy resistance + displacement/blur + just upping hp on select SR mobs). As a DM, I was more irritated by mass conviction. It seems innocent, but I'm not sure the game was designed around having that much stacking saving throw bonus all at once *for such a long period of time*. Yes, I could spread out encounters to kill the 10 mins/level buff time or go dispel crazy, but not *all* the time. Extended Mass Conviction = ):


Zurai wrote:
Are wrote:
A spontaneous caster player in one of my games cast empowered Orb of Force and two regular Orb of Force every single turn, every single encounter,

1) How is he casting 3 spells a turn? Unless you're playing Epic, there's no way to cast a standard action spell more than twice in a turn on average (1 standard action cast, 1 quickened cast; you could cast celerity to get an extra standard and cast again, but you'd give up your entire next turn to do so, so it's a net loss of average casts).

2) How is he getting that many 4th, 6th, and 8th level spells? Or, alternately, that many 4th level spells, free hands, and metamagic rods?

1) One Quickened (with metamagic rod) and two with an 8th-level spell I don't remember the name of right now (from Spell Compendium or PHB2) that lets you cast a 7th-level spell and a 4th-level spell.

2) A high Charisma gives you quite a decent amount of bonus spells; everything was by the book. Since most encounters aren't designed for the monsters to withstand 100+ ranged damage per turn, encounters were usually over in 2-3 rounds.

I actually don't have any problems with the other Orb spells; since you're likely to run into opponents with resistance or immunity to their specific energy type at some point. There are extremely few monsters with resistance or immunity to force damage; only one or two in the entire range of 3.0/3.5 books, at least one of which is epic :)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

My big problem with orb of force (besides what does an orb of force look like after the spell is over. It is an instantanious conjuration thus permanent) wasn't with the orb rules, it was with the economy of actions and counterspelling rules.

With the improved familiar/battle sorcerer combo, I had a set of actions for my pseudodragon, and could ready an orb to counterspell. When you add abjurant champion, you get a quickened abjuration every round (dispel magics all 'round!) the familiar's actions, and my readied action. Trying to counterspell the cleric's flamestrike is hard. Him trying to make a 40+ spell level concentration check, and taking 30 points of damage is impossible.

And heaven help your DM if you crit with it. Yes I actually got to tell the DM once, "70 points of damage. Ok he needs a DC 15 fort save and to make a DC 80+ spell level concentration check."

Of more concern to me was ray deflection though. a 4th level spell that shuts down all ranged touch attacks? Yes please.


Matthew Morris wrote:

My big problem with orb of force (besides what does an orb of force look like after the spell is over. It is an instantanious conjuration thus permanent) wasn't with the orb rules, it was with the economy of actions and counterspelling rules.

With the improved familiar/battle sorcerer combo, I had a set of actions for my pseudodragon, and could ready an orb to counterspell. When you add abjurant champion, you get a quickened abjuration every round (dispel magics all 'round!) the familiar's actions, and my readied action. Trying to counterspell the cleric's flamestrike is hard. Him trying to make a 40+ spell level concentration check, and taking 30 points of damage is impossible.

And heaven help your DM if you crit with it. Yes I actually got to tell the DM once, "70 points of damage. Ok he needs a DC 15 fort save and to make a DC 80+ spell level concentration check."

Of more concern to me was ray deflection though. a 4th level spell that shuts down all ranged touch attacks? Yes please.

That(high concentration check) is not an orb issue. That could have been done with any spell that needs an attack roll, and possibly one that does not need an attack roll.

Ray deflection only works on ray spells. All rays are ranged touch, but not all ranged touch are ray spells.


Matthew Morris wrote:
you get a quickened abjuration every round (dispel magics all 'round!)

Doesn't work unless you're getting dispel magic as a 2nd level spell. Abjurant Champion only gets up to 2nd level abjurations auto-quickened (1 level per 2 AC levels, min 1).


Pathos wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Just as important as judging each spell on a case by case basis is throttling how many spells clerics and druids can add to their lists. Being able to prep from any spell on a long list is a pretty significant power - add a lot to that, even with individual spells that may be OK, and you can see a pretty significant expansion of power. By contrast, characters that have a limited list of known spells or have spells that must be bought and put into a spellbook control this problem naturally.

A bit OT, I know, but this makes for a nice little house-rule of "Prayer" Books" for Clerics/Druids.

Set aside a list of universal spells that are automatically in the book, as well as the clerics domain spells. Otherwise, treat spell acquasition the same as a Wiz.

I really like this idea. I'm just about to start a new campaign myself, so I am going to put this forward as a houserule. Classes who gain access to entire lists can only draw from the list of the book they came from(with the exception of new/odd Domain Spells). I.E. Clerics and Druids have access to every spell in the PHB/PFCR; all "new" spells need to be learned accordingly.

I confess I've played a few clerics who drew from the Spell Compendium and had my DM in tears.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Zurai wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
you get a quickened abjuration every round (dispel magics all 'round!)
Doesn't work unless you're getting dispel magic as a 2nd level spell. Abjurant Champion only gets up to 2nd level abjurations auto-quickened (1 level per 2 AC levels, min 1).

5th level allows 3rd level spells (IDHTCAIFOM)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

wraithstrike wrote:
That(high concentration check) is not an orb issue. That could have been done with any spell that needs an attack roll, and possibly one that does not need an attack roll.

Oh agreed, thus my comment about it being a flaw in the counterspell rules.

wraithstrike wrote:
Ray deflection only works on ray spells. All rays are ranged touch, but not all ranged touch are ray spells.

Actually the spell specifically said against 'ranged touch attacks'.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
you get a quickened abjuration every round (dispel magics all 'round!)
Doesn't work unless you're getting dispel magic as a 2nd level spell. Abjurant Champion only gets up to 2nd level abjurations auto-quickened (1 level per 2 AC levels, min 1).
5th level allows 3rd level spells (IDHTCAIFOM)

Ack, you're right, it specifies "round up", which makes it just about the only thing in the game that does round up. Mea culpa.

Sovereign Court

Whatever you do:

>Don't allow a ranged-touch specialist evoker with fire focus at your table armed with the Spell Compendium. Its simply wonky. The bloat of power there will be obvious and un-fun for the rest.

In short, I've removed Spell Compendium from play. (I used a story convention to do this, having the PCs travel to another world where those formulae of magic do not work.)


Personally I've not had any problem with the vast majority of spell compendium spells at my table. The only one that was an issue at one point was ray of stupidity. Though if anyone wants it for my pathfinder game i'll likely give it the ray of enfeeblement nerf bat and through in a will save for half.


Matthew Morris wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ray deflection only works on ray spells. All rays are ranged touch, but not all ranged touch are ray spells.

Actually the spell specifically said against 'ranged touch attacks'.

I stand corrected. That is good to know. I will make a decision regarding that spell for my games soon.


I can never condone banning an entire book. Even core books have broken things in them. Take out the bad and keep whatever you think you can handle as a DM. If you are not sure then tell the player feat/spell/ability X is allowed on a trial basis only.

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Spell Compendium - Balanced OK for Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.