So let me get this right...if someone wanted to use a "Splinterbolt" (Druid 2nd, similar to scorching ray but deals piercing damage with a critical threat range) then they couldnt reword it to lets say... "Sylvian Splinterarrow" and have it in my game by that logic.
Pathfinder is backwards compatible, even if it means they cant republish or edit someone elses work it doesnt stop people from using it.
And as for similar items, well thats put alot of item creation options out of buisness then, people will have to tip-toe about coming up with ideas if they have to check 3.5 books for similarities if that were the case. That isnt supposed to be the intention behind making your own spells and items.
Princess, do you mean 'use in a published scenario by an NPC' or do you mean 'use in a game as a PC'? If the latter, there is nothing stopping you. If the former, the way forward is to go for the result - an enhancement to a bow or crossbow attack - and create a spell that does this in a way that suits what you are trying to achieve in the supplement.
there are also some spells that got fixed by PF.
wraithstrike comes to mind - that sucker was deadly when there was no cap on power attack. pretty OP for PCs, but broken with your dragon BBEG uses it! now, it is good, but not broken.
if you allow SC, I would recommend including spells on a case by case basis.
Personally, I would ban ray of stupidity, unless you want to effectively eliminate animals and magical beasts from your campaign.
|
Personally, I would ban ray of stupidity, unless you want to effectively eliminate animals and magical beasts from your campaign.
While that spell is on my top 10 spells to not allow in PF...or any game in general...kelpstrand is my number 1 spell to not allow from spell compendium. Hey look, it black tentacle...only level 2...and instead of the CL based grapple check you make one that is the druids BAB + caster level + wisdom + 4 if near water...oh and if you have any feats that boost grapple check, yeah add those too. Oh and it´s target able so you can do this around allies and can target multiple enemies.
While that spell is on my top 10 spells to not allow in PF...or any game in general...kelpstrand is my number 1 spell to not allow from spell compendium. Hey look, it black tentacle...only level 2...and instead of the CL based grapple check you make one that is the druids BAB + caster level + wisdom + 4 if near water...oh and if you have any feats that boost grapple check, yeah add those too. Oh and it´s target able so you can do this around allies and can target multiple enemies.Personally, I would ban ray of stupidity, unless you want to effectively eliminate animals and magical beasts from your campaign.
I played a 3.5 druid and never used it. probably because I was sharing a bite of the weretiger with my advanced dire bear companion while in dire bear form and grappling myself. or summoning a pack of augmented dire bears. good times...
avasculate is another obnoxious gem.
ray of stoopidity is actually not terrible to fix, just change it to penalty and cap penalty so that score can't be zero, just like ray of enfeeblement.
|
|
I played a 3.5 druid and never used it. probably because I was sharing a bite of the weretiger with my advanced dire bear companion while in dire bear form and grappling myself. or summoning a pack of augmented dire bears. good times...While that spell is on my top 10 spells to not allow in PF...or any game in general...kelpstrand is my number 1 spell to not allow from spell compendium. Hey look, it black tentacle...only level 2...and instead of the CL based grapple check you make one that is the druids BAB + caster level + wisdom + 4 if near water...oh and if you have any feats that boost grapple check, yeah add those too. Oh and it´s target able so you can do this around allies and can target multiple enemies.Personally, I would ban ray of stupidity, unless you want to effectively eliminate animals and magical beasts from your campaign.
Yes...but could you do that to more then 2 targets? And at range? The summons is nice...but that ain´t a level 2 spell now is it.
you win, it is OP. I'm just saying it was a tiny jewel in the druid's thorny crown.
Well, there was always Greenbound Summoning to buff every single summoned monster you ever summoned for the price of one feat.
Or Rashemi elemental summoning.
not to threadjack here, but the bestiary splats (fiend folio especially) were worse for breaking druids than spell compendium.
EDIT: all time worst offender spell for druids was venomfire (serpent kingdoms)
blinding spittle (spell compendium) was as OP at level 3 as level 20.
So let me get this right...if someone wanted to use a "Splinterbolt" (Druid 2nd, similar to scorching ray but deals piercing damage with a critical threat range) then they couldnt reword it to lets say... "Sylvian Splinterarrow" and have it in my game by that logic.
It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of US copyright law.
In your game, a player could say "Hey, I'm using Splinterbolt from the SC", and you would say "That's cool". A person is legally entitled to use information they purchased for personal use.
But if that player said "You know, this Splinterbolt spell is so cool that I'm going to rename it, pretend it's mine, put it in a book and make lots of money", you should say "That's illegal, you'll be sued." When you are making money, it's no longer personal use.
|
|
Well, there was always Greenbound Summoning to buff every single summoned monster you ever summoned for the price of one feat.Or Rashemi elemental summoning.
not to threadjack here, but the bestiary splats (fiend folio especially) were worse for breaking druids than spell compendium.
EDIT: all time worst offender spell for druids was venomfire (serpent kingdoms)
blinding spittle (spell compendium) was as OP at level 3 as level 20.
Serpent kingdom has ALL sorts of issues...I try to ignore it exists.
Serpent kingdom has ALL sorts of issues...I try to ignore it exists.
pun pun, 'nuff said
Compare Avasculate to Harm, then talk :)
Harm is a far superior combat spell than Avasculate. A level lower, a determined amount of damage which can be used in conjunction with metamagic as needed.
hey, I don't want to take away from the nasty spells in the SRD. losing a save to harm will ruin your whole day (unless you are undead of course). but at least you get a save!
avasculate takes away half of all hp (no cap mind), no save. this can mean it does more than losing a save to disintegrate, say. there is a save, but that is just for the icing on the cake, stunning for 1 round. I would say that is a pretty obnoxious spell.
So, the only way avasculate is really better is if you have some hit point monster like a dragon. it really needs to be something with 300+ hitpoints so you know you can take off 150. Otherwise I would prefer a Harm simply due to the one slot difference.
let's not forget it is a ranged touch attack, and that it can be cast multiple times on a single target (or used in combination with symbol of foo, or harm, etc). I would say that the tipping point is actually lower than 300hp, it just needs to be more than double the number that is taken if the foe saves (which most will at that level). but you are right, avasculate really shines (or stinks) with a single big opponent, which is actually fairly common at high level.
but in the end, it isn't a contest between whether avasculate is more broken than some of the stuff in the SRD, it is a question of whether, for the GM considering the SC, do you really want a potentially more powerful version of harm in your campaign? or any of the other beauts in the SC, for that matter. proceed with caution would be my advice, the sheer number of new spells available is bound to result in a huge power boost for divine casters especially.
the truth is, I've had more trouble as a 3.5 GM with the defensive spells, like greater resistance, anticipate teleport, etc. than the offensive ones people usually complain about (like the orbs).
That is probably why shivering touch ended up left out of the SC ... it was meant to be a revamp of many spells from earlier sources, and did nerf some overpowered spells from those sources. Sure, some are still broken, but rule 0 trumps them: the DM allows spells on a case by case basis.
The limitations regarding use of IP and copyright law apply whether or not profit is involved.
It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of US copyright law.In your game, a player could say "Hey, I'm using Splinterbolt from the SC", and you would say "That's cool". A person is legally entitled to use information they purchased for personal use.
--SNIP--
Sorry, I think this bears repeating. If I own a book, and use the contents of the book in a fashion consistent with the publishers stated use of the material, then, although IANAL, I believe IP-wise I am fine.
Otherwise, Disney would be suing everytime someone watches Mulan on DVD in their home, after having purchased it through legitimate channels.
If, however, I take my home licensed DVD of this same movie, and show it at my local community center, then I may end up served legal notice by Disney.
Now, taking that metaphor, I believe using a Spell Compendium spell in a Pathfinder/3.5 hybrid game at my FLGS is okay, as it falls within the license provided for use of the material. However, using it at a Con game in a more formal PF only type of scenario, even if I specify that I researched the spell as a custom spell using the core rules provided for such research, would still potentially be actionable.
Panacea, 4th level: Ends all conditions. ALL of them, including but not limited to ability damage, ability drain, nausea, stat penalties, and negative levels.
False. Panacea very explicitly does not remove ability damage, ability drain, or negative levels.
Transfix, 7th level: Mass paralysis in a 10' radius sphere, save every hour to escape, effects anything entering the sphere. This spell is effectively permanent, since you can name an impossible condition.
Vastly overstated. It only works against medium-sized humanoids. As a 7th level spell. By that time, you're almost never going to be encountering more than a single humanoid foe at a time that's any threat. In addition, it isn't friendly fire safe, and you ALWAYS have medium sized humanoids in your party. Third, it's got a 1 round casting time, like summon spells do. Finally, it is not effectively permanent. The spell has a 1 hour/level duration.
Whirling blade, 2nd level: Sends your weapon to attack any enemies in a line. Combine this with sticky poison, and watch you enemies drop like flies.
I had to laugh at this. This is really stretching it.
---
It's amazing how often "OMG OVERPOWERED!!!!11!!" ends up being "OMG I DIDN'T READ THE ENTIRE SPELL!!!11!".
I'm not denying that there ARE overpowered spells in there (hello, greater consumptive field -- just add bag o' rats), just that most of the spells are fairly balanced if you read them all the way through.
Whirling blade, 2nd level: Sends your weapon to attack any enemies in a line. Combine this with sticky poison, and watch you enemies drop like flies.I had to laugh at this. This is really stretching it.
Not that we agree all the time, but yeah, that is WAY stretching it. It would sort of be like saying Truestrike is overpowered because I can cast it and then throw a backpack full of greek fire potions at the BBEG and burn him to a crisp in one round with a 1st level spell.
All in all I think there are a lot more well balanced spells in the SC then there are unbalanced spells (though I might be a bit biased in that regard), as long as the DM/GM makes a point of reading and understanding the spell in question while deciding whether or not to allow it into his or her game, there should not be a problem with allowing the majority of the SC spells in.
Nothing in the SC is as broken as some off the spells in 2E..Chromatic Orb springs instantly to mind..in fact the individual orb spells were a direct result of breaking that particular abomination down into its component parts and assigning a proper level of power to the higher powered parts.
while we are on the topic of the orb spells, I've always thought that the orb of force was wonky. it has the same damage dice as the elemental orbs(although a lower damage cap at 10d6 vs 15d6) and is medium range instead of close range. it also doesn't have the secondary effects (which can be good, admittedly). force is clearly a much better type of damage than the elemental ones, so until 11th level is reached, orb of force is far superior. somehow the reduced cap doesn't seem enough. did someone make a mistake having it be medium range and not having a smaller damage dice?
while we are on the topic of the orb spells, I've always thought that the orb of force was wonky. it has the same damage dice as the elemental orbs(although a lower damage cap at 10d6 vs 15d6) and is medium range instead of close range. it also doesn't have the secondary effects (which can be good, admittedly). force is clearly a much better type of damage than the elemental ones, so until 11th level is reached, orb of force is far superior. somehow the reduced cap doesn't seem enough. did someone make a mistake having it be medium range and not having a smaller damage dice?
That's actually one of the few spells I would probably modify. Make it the same as the other orbs, but reduce the die size by one level, making it similar to the way they do sonic damage.
while we are on the topic of the orb spells, I've always thought that the orb of force was wonky. it has the same damage dice as the elemental orbs(although a lower damage cap at 10d6 vs 15d6) and is medium range instead of close range. it also doesn't have the secondary effects (which can be good, admittedly). force is clearly a much better type of damage than the elemental ones, so until 11th level is reached, orb of force is far superior. somehow the reduced cap doesn't seem enough. did someone make a mistake having it be medium range and not having a smaller damage dice?
Orb of force is just moronic in the first place. It's the one orb spell I have issues with beyond "why on earth would you bother preparing it unless you know for a fact you're going to be fighting golems?". How exactly do you conjure a sphere of nonmagical force? The spell makes no sense. It's not overpowered or anything, but it's stupid beyond measure.
Orb of force is just moronic in the first place. It's the one orb spell I have issues with beyond "why on earth would you bother preparing it unless you know for a fact you're going to be fighting golems?". How exactly do you conjure a sphere of nonmagical force? The spell makes no sense. It's not overpowered or anything, but it's stupid beyond measure.
should be evocation, and allow SR, no question.
but that is a different thread!
should be evocation, and allow SR, no question.
It's the one orb spell I'd agree with that for. All the others I can see as conjured nonmagical orbs, even sound (having seen a video of a sound cannon that destroyed a pig-sized brick house).
|
|
Whirling blade isn´t broken...but it is fun with sculpt spell.
Yeah shivering touch is also a no go spell...but like mentioned, not in SC.
Avasculate is horribly broken when combined with twin spell. Twin spell doesn´t happen in succession, it happens simultaneously. So you end up at 0 hp...no save. Course you need to be an incantrix with levels of haluraa elder and 9th level spell slot. Or a greater twinned meta rod.
Edit: yeah orb of force...I also have some issues with that spell.
So let me get this right...if someone wanted to use a "Splinterbolt" (Druid 2nd, similar to scorching ray but deals piercing damage with a critical threat range) then they couldnt reword it to lets say... "Sylvian Splinterarrow" and have it in my game by that logic.
It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of US copyright law.
In your game, a player could say "Hey, I'm using Splinterbolt from the SC", and you would say "That's cool". A person is legally entitled to use information they purchased for personal use.
But if that player said "You know, this Splinterbolt spell is so cool that I'm going to rename it, pretend it's mine, put it in a book and make lots of money", you should say "That's illegal, you'll be sued." When you are making money, it's no longer personal use.
IANAL, but I think copyright law does not apply to rules and gaming concepts. So while I can't copypasta existing spells I can replicate the mechanics and give them new flavor text as needed.
Technically you could rewrite any closed class such as the Duskblade, strip out the fluff, rename the abilities and create the same mechanical concept using new text. However that might get you out of compliance with the OGL and get you in trouble. In short while people can probably get by with more stuff than they currently attempt to, doing so invites legal challenges and additional expenses. Is it really any wonder that most companies try to stay out of the grey areas?
If high saves were a game-winner, we'd all be playing monks.You mean you're not?
The paladin laughs at your saves.
Nothing in the SC is as broken as some off the spells in 2E..Chromatic Orb springs instantly to mind..in fact the individual orb spells were a direct result of breaking that particular abomination down into its component parts and assigning a proper level of power to the higher powered parts.
OMG...lmfao.
I remember that spell, my DM REFUSED to let any of us have access to it (despite the 50gp material component)...lol, broken as hell, 1st level spell that causes horrendous effects on a failed save. It was like a lesser prismatic spray spell with regards to a single character.
No surprise it didnt make it into Pathfider or 3.5 though I have some unofficial versions of it...lol
Avasculate is horribly broken when combined with twin spell. Twin spell doesn´t happen in succession, it happens simultaneously. So you end up at 0 hp...no save. Course you need to be an incantrix with levels of haluraa elder and 9th level spell slot. Or a greater twinned meta rod.
Actually, you'd be reduced by 50% per spell even though its simultaeous, just as you recieve two saves versus the spell.
Your hit points would be halved twice, reduced to 50% then that 50% is halved as well. You'd be left with 25hp if you had 100 to start with.
Simultaneous spells (Twinned spells) dont add up all their effects and give one save, just as being caught by two meteors from Meteor Swarm gives you two seperate saves even though it happens at the same time (check the Pathfinder description of Meteor Swarm to see what I mean). The same applies to any Twinned Spell.
I generally use the core book as a cap for the power level of new spells I make. A cross comparison can be done to see what spells are too powerful and damage especially should be littler to no more that what an existing spell can deal. Same with instant kill effects (hold person counts for this), durations and ranges. If a new spell is completely unique simply ask yourself when in a players career should they be able to cast it.
|
|
Avasculate is horribly broken when combined with twin spell. Twin spell doesn´t happen in succession, it happens simultaneously. So you end up at 0 hp...no save. Course you need to be an incantrix with levels of haluraa elder and 9th level spell slot. Or a greater twinned meta rod.
Actually, you'd be reduced by 50% per spell even though its simultaeous, just as you recieve two saves versus the spell.
Your hit points would be halved twice, reduced to 50% then that 50% is halved as well. You'd be left with 25hp if you had 100 to start with.
Simultaneous spells (Twinned spells) dont add up all their effects and give one save, just as being caught by two meteors from Meteor Swarm gives you two seperate saves even though it happens at the same time (check the Pathfinder description of Meteor Swarm to see what I mean). The same applies to any Twinned Spell.
Actually the way twinned spell is written, you don´t just get two saves...both effects also happen exactly at the same time as well...so when the twinned avasculate hit, you lose half your current hp twice...also known of 0 hp. I never said you combine the effects and get one save. You still make two saves...but the effects of each spell is based off your current condition. So lets say you twinned power word pain. The duration of the damage would be based off your full current HP...not you take the 1d10 damage, then the second one figures out how long that one goes for as an example.
"Empower Spell" affects one spell and the spell allows one save (if applicable), "Twin Spell" casts a spell twice at the same time, much as someone using it to cast two "Fireballs" - the target would recieve two saving throws for half damage each. The same would apply to any spell, Empower affects a spells attributes directly, Twin spell just casts the spell twice.
|
|
"Empower Spell" affects one spell and the spell allows one save (if applicable), "Twin Spell" casts a spell twice at the same time, much as someone using it to cast two "Fireballs" - the target would recieve two saving throws for half damage each. The same would apply to any spell, Empower affects a spells attributes directly, Twin spell just casts the spell twice.
I have no idea where your going with comparing twinned spells to empowered spell. Twinned spells says the spells both go off simultaneously...if you wanna ignore that for sequentially in your game, fine...but the examples you are giving has no bearing on the RAW of twinned spells nor how it works with avasculate.
Twinned spells says the spells both go off simultaneously...if you wanna ignore that for sequentially in your game, fine...but the examples you are giving has no bearing on the RAW of twinned spells nor how it works with avasculate.
Actually, using your definition, the second avasculate of the twinned pair would have no effect, since the wording is "you are reduced to half your hit points."
If they were to happen perfectly simultaneously to someone at full hit points, each would reduce that target to half hit points, thus making the second one irrelevant.
Sequentially would reduce the target to 1/4 hit points.
It's amazing how often "OMG OVERPOWERED!!!!11!!" ends up being "OMG I DIDN'T READ THE ENTIRE SPELL!!!11!".
Yep, that's very often the case to a lot of 'broken' material. Usually people don't read things anything like as closely as they should do. It's how people keep complaining that psionics is broken too ... but that's a can of worms for another thread not this one.
If you think a spell is broken, read the text carefully. You may find out that it's the player's recall, not the spell's description that is faulty.
I've been using SC since it came out. The only time I've had any problems is when players didn't read/use the spells correctly.
I have no idea where your going with comparing twinned spells to empowered spell. Twinned spells says the spells both go off simultaneously...if you wanna ignore that for sequentially in your game, fine...but the examples you are giving has no bearing on the RAW of twinned spells nor how it works with avasculate.Um, looking over the wording of the MM feat and the spell, I can't help but agree with PoC that the total damage is 75% of your hp. It "reduces hp", not "deals damage equal to". That little wording choice makes a world of difference.
Thank you, the spells wording is its own downfall in this case, to reduce you to half hit points twice would result in being reduced to a net of 25% of post-avasculate hit points since you apply the effect twice... half of half is a quarter.
Actually, the spell I have the worst time with is Otto's Irresistable Dance.
Players can do a LOT of damage in d4+1 rounds - or 2d4+2 if it's lengthened. Ugh.