So the 3.5 SC is great, but a lot of the spells need balance fixes for the Pathfinder system (the Orbs are wicked). I vote for a Pathfinder version, because some of the spells are just to sweet to pass up (Mind fog then unluck = awesome) especially for Bards.
So the 3.5 SC is great, but a lot of the spells need balance fixes for the Pathfinder system (the Orbs are wicked). I vote for a Pathfinder version, because some of the spells are just to sweet to pass up (Mind fog then unluck = awesome) especially for Bards.
Carry over the ranger, paladin, and bard spells (assassins no longer have spell casting).
In fact, give assassins spellcasting back, and then carry over SC assassin spells :p
Druids, clerics, and wizards, need no help >:|
If you like Mind Fog And Unluck, check out some of these:
Nerveskitter - 1st level immediate action to win initiative!
Assay Spell Resistance - 4th level swift action to defeat SR!
Ruin Delver's Fortune - 4th level immediate action to make that save, and get a bonus ability to boot (evasion/immunities/temp hp), and it lasts for up to 4 rounds! IIRC.
And these are just a couple that can replace feats!
Not open content, Paizo can't touch it.
NOOOOOOOO! SUPER SAD PANDA :( -1 to WOTC
Actually, I've had little trouble with the SC in Pathfinder. Granted, the highest level my group can cast is 5. So we haven't gotten into the really nasty SoD or SoS spells. There are quite a few in there that are well balanced and work well. Vigors, Repairs, and so on. Some of the 7th 8th and 9th level spells need to be nerfed with a nuke, but I'll take those on a case by case basis as they come up.
I'll second that. As long as you let your DM have veto on any spell you want to use, then it works just fine. A lot of the SC spells are not unbalanced, like much of the later Wizards stuff.
The Orbs, and rays, which allow no save and no spell resistance need to be brought more in line with the Ray of Enfeeblement update for Pathfinder. Those are the big ones in our group that quickly can get OP.
You're going to run into some balance issues with the plethora of energy type spells which don't see requisite resistances in PF. For instance, there are a plethora of sonic and force effect spells that don't have adequate counters in PF.
Remember, anytime the spellbook choices open up in the game, spellcasters get a power boost that the other classes do not. The APG will provide this for core PF when it hits.
Even some of the very innocent seeming spells in that book are OP.
Conviction is a great example. At first glance, it appears to be very similar to shield of faith. It give a +2 bonus to saves with an additional +1 every 6 levels to a +5 at level 18. Then you notice the differences, SoF doesn't stack with a ring of deflection, conviction is a morale bonus and stacks with just about everything. Mass conviction is straight up adding +3 to everyone's saves at level 6, and is a level 3 spell.
Conviction is a great example. At first glance, it appears to be very similar to shield of faith. It give a +2 bonus to saves with an additional +1 every 6 levels to a +5 at level 18. Then you notice the differences, SoF doesn't stack with a ring of deflection, conviction is a morale bonus and stacks with just about everything. Mass conviction is straight up adding +3 to everyone's saves at level 6, and is a level 3 spell.
I have to say, this does not actually sound overpowered to me. Yes, it's a boost to saves, but saves don't always negate when you make them, and it doesn't guarentee that you'll make them. If high saves were a game-winner, we'd all be playing monks.
Even some of the very innocent seeming spells in that book are OP.
Conviction is a great example. At first glance, it appears to be very similar to shield of faith. It give a +2 bonus to saves with an additional +1 every 6 levels to a +5 at level 18. Then you notice the differences, SoF doesn't stack with a ring of deflection, conviction is a morale bonus and stacks with just about everything. Mass conviction is straight up adding +3 to everyone's saves at level 6, and is a level 3 spell.
Good point. The bonus types in SC lurk below the surface but tend to stack most efficiently.
Good point. The bonus types in SC lurk below the surface but tend to stack most efficiently.Even some of the very innocent seeming spells in that book are OP.
Conviction is a great example. At first glance, it appears to be very similar to shield of faith. It give a +2 bonus to saves with an additional +1 every 6 levels to a +5 at level 18. Then you notice the differences, SoF doesn't stack with a ring of deflection, conviction is a morale bonus and stacks with just about everything. Mass conviction is straight up adding +3 to everyone's saves at level 6, and is a level 3 spell.
Actually, Morale Bonuses don't stack with other Morale Bonuses, and morale bonuses are especially common, particularly when class features come into play. Most bard bonuses are morale bonuses for example. Many paladin bonuses as well.
I have to say, this does not actually sound overpowered to me. Yes, it's a boost to saves, but saves don't always negate when you make them, and it doesn't guarentee that you'll make them. If high saves were a game-winner, we'd all be playing monks.
What'd you think of Ruin Delver's Fortune (4th level spell)? Get your spellcasting stat bonus to 1 type of save immediately and for 1d4 rounds, along with evasion (Ref), poison immunity (Fort), or fear immunity (Will), IIRC.
If high saves were a game-winner, we'd all be playing monks.
You mean you're not?
Conviction is a great example. At first glance, it appears to be very similar to shield of faith. It give a +2 bonus to saves with an additional +1 every 6 levels to a +5 at level 18. Then you notice the differences, SoF doesn't stack with a ring of deflection, conviction is a morale bonus and stacks with just about everything. Mass conviction is straight up adding +3 to everyone's saves at level 6, and is a level 3 spell.I have to say, this does not actually sound overpowered to me. Yes, it's a boost to saves, but saves don't always negate when you make them, and it doesn't guarentee that you'll make them. If high saves were a game-winner, we'd all be playing monks.
However, with Conviction, you can play a class that is effective :-P and still have monk-like saves.
Assuming you are not getting any other morale bonuses to your saves, that spell makes your bad saves into good saves and your good saves into something that probably does only fail on a natural 1.
I have to say, this does not actually sound overpowered to me. Yes, it's a boost to saves, but saves don't always negate when you make them, and it doesn't guarentee that you'll make them. If high saves were a game-winner, we'd all be playing monks.What'd you think of Ruin Delver's Fortune (4th level spell)? Get your spellcasting stat bonus to 1 type of save immediately and for 1d4 rounds, along with evasion (Ref), poison immunity (Fort), or fear immunity (Will), IIRC.
Not quite, what you get is (choose one of the following):
1) Luck Bonus to Fort save equal to Charisma bonus + Immunity to Poison
2) Luck Bonus to Reflex save equal to Charisma Bonus + Evasion.
3) Luck Bonus to Will save equal to Charisma Bonus + Immunity to Fear.
4) Temporary hit points equal to 4d8 + Charisma Bonus.
Not really all that overpowered considering it's a forth level spell that only lasts 1 to 4 rounds. Other 4th level spells that are as powerful (IMO)
Break Enchantment (free's subjects from enchantments, transmutations and curses)
Greater Invisibility (Stay invisible & attack, 1 round per level)
Rainbow Pattern (Fascinate 24HD worth of creatures!)
Globe of Invulnerability, Lesser (stops 1st to 3rd level spell effects)
Black Tentacles (Nuff Said)
Stoneskin (DR 10/Adamantine)
Contagion
Enervation (1d4 negative levels!)
Actually, Morale Bonuses don't stack with other Morale Bonuses, and morale bonuses are especially common, particularly when class features come into play. Most bard bonuses are morale bonuses for example. Many paladin bonuses as well.Good point. The bonus types in SC lurk below the surface but tend to stack most efficiently.Even some of the very innocent seeming spells in that book are OP.
Conviction is a great example. At first glance, it appears to be very similar to shield of faith. It give a +2 bonus to saves with an additional +1 every 6 levels to a +5 at level 18. Then you notice the differences, SoF doesn't stack with a ring of deflection, conviction is a morale bonus and stacks with just about everything. Mass conviction is straight up adding +3 to everyone's saves at level 6, and is a level 3 spell.
Take a look at a Paladin. If he has even an 18 Cha, 8th level, cloak of resistance +3, with conviction, adding in just his base saves without ability mods, he has saves of 16, 12, 16. Most spellcasters of the same level will have a max Save DC on their highest level spells of low to mid 20's, which means a paladin will save most of the time. It adds up fast.
Actually, Morale Bonuses don't stack with other Morale Bonuses, and morale bonuses are especially common, particularly when class features come into play. Most bard bonuses are morale bonuses for example. Many paladin bonuses as well.Good point. The bonus types in SC lurk below the surface but tend to stack most efficiently.Even some of the very innocent seeming spells in that book are OP.
Conviction is a great example. At first glance, it appears to be very similar to shield of faith. It give a +2 bonus to saves with an additional +1 every 6 levels to a +5 at level 18. Then you notice the differences, SoF doesn't stack with a ring of deflection, conviction is a morale bonus and stacks with just about everything. Mass conviction is straight up adding +3 to everyone's saves at level 6, and is a level 3 spell.
For a level 1 spell it is a little over the line. Morale bonuses to saves stacks with the most common type of save bonus, cloak of resistance. When your level 5 fighter is running around with a +7 or +8 will and reflex saves it kind of destroys the idea of weak saves. I also seem to remember one of the versions of the spells was 1 hour/level. My point is that with a lot of the SC spells, the devil is in the details.
SC had a few real stinkers power wise. The first one that immidiately comes to mind is Nerveskitter - now your wizard never loses initiative to anything ever again! All for the low low price of a single level 1 spell!
And don't forget Assay Spell Resistance - making SR completely pointless!
SC had a few real stinkers power wise. The first one that immidiately comes to mind is Nerveskitter - now your wizard never loses initiative to anything ever again! All for the low low price of a single level 1 spell!
And don't forget Assay Spell Resistance - making SR completely pointless!
Uhm, +5 to initiative does not equal always win initiative.
Now, Assay Spell Resistance I will grant you is a mite overpowered for a 4th level spell. I think a +5 would have been more balanced. A +10 basically does blow away spell resistance. Or, 1/2 CL might have been better, letting it scale with level. So at level 20 you'd get a +10, but at that level creatures are having SR 35 and 40 so that's not a big deal then.
|
First, I would hardly call +5 to initiative "never lose initiative again".
Second, Assay Spell Resistance is really situational and is only against one creature. Consider all of the other things you might be able to do with that 4th level spell slot. Most of the time you have a 50/50 shot at beating their SR anyways, so this is just if you plan on sinking 3 or more spell slots at a creature with SR.
EDIT: ninja'd
EDIT EDIT: Actually, I would like for the spell itself to actually target a creature and allow for SR- that way you have to beat it under normal conditions so that you're aware of exactly how to beat it the second time around
If high saves were a game-winner, we'd all be playing monks.You mean you're not?
Well yes, I am a lot of the time, they are my favourite class, but I know that a lot of other people aren't.
That said, a spell boosting saves is not a game-breaker. It's a buff, and buffs can prepare you for just about everything. The trick is knowing what to prepare for ...
|
Kelpstrand...this spell is OP compared to the 3.5 spell lists. This one will utter blow PF spell list power level out of the water.
The bite spell line. Hell any of the polymorph school...even with the toned down version, it still quite a bit more power then the PF line of polymorph spells.
The negative level sword summon...multiple attacks per round 1 neg level per hit...not a 9th level spell.
Ray of dizziness...hey have a slow spell...no save.
Ray of stupidity...1d4 int DAMAGE...not a penalty like the other ray stat spells.
Owl´s insight...who wants +10 wisdom on their druids? Yeah I thought so.
And that is off the top of my head...I´m sure I can find way more if I bothered to look.
Owl´s insight...who wants +10 wisdom on their druids? Yeah I thought so.
For only 1 hour (ever) as a 5th level spell? Almost nobody. It gives +5 DCs and +5 to a handful of skill checks for one hour. That's hardly overpowered. It's not like it gives them extra spells per day.
|
|
Owl´s insight...who wants +10 wisdom on their druids? Yeah I thought so.For only 1 hour (ever) as a 5th level spell? Almost nobody. It gives +5 DCs and +5 to a handful of skill checks for one hour. That's hardly overpowered. It's not like it gives them extra spells per day.
+5 to DC is enough...you have any idea what most other classes goes through for +5 DC? Well except for a void disciple wu-jen who casts giant form and the swaps strength for int to get 78 int....
Druids don't really have many spells where DCs are really all that important. IIRC, they actually have fewer save-or-dies than clerics do. And, again, it's only for one single hour. Not hours per level -- one hour. Period, regardless of caster level. That means it's only really useful for scry-and-fry situations, and frankly scry-and-fry is so powerful that Owl's Insight is just a fraction of the cherry on top.
Owl's insight certainly doesn't compare to teleport or wind walk for power. Both of those spells utterly destroy entire campaign settings.
|
SC had a few real stinkers power wise. The first one that immidiately comes to mind is Nerveskitter - now your wizard never loses initiative to anything ever again! All for the low low price of a single level 1 spell!
Maybe you missed the Diviner's class abilities which makes this spell look weak.
Nerveskitter is one of the better spells in the book, decent power level, makes first level spells a bit more useful and it's a bit flavorful. If you think it's that bad then consider having it so it doesn't stack with Improved Initiative.
Well, in any case, I'd like to see Paizo put out it's own large compendium of spells, as well as a feat compendium for that matter. Just nice big resources that all current and future classes will use for spell and feat lists. Just an idea, I like simple and compiled resources for those.
Also, some additional and more in depth guidelines for spell and feat creation for House rules. That would be cool too :)
|
|
Well, in any case, I'd like to see Paizo put out it's own large compendium of spells, as well as a feat compendium for that matter. Just nice big resources that all current and future classes will use for spell and feat lists. Just an idea, I like simple and compiled resources for those.
Also, some additional and more in depth guidelines for spell and feat creation for House rules. That would be cool too :)
Well considering the current lack of splat books...such books wouldn´t so much be a compilation book so much as a spell and feat splat book...which I do think is a good idea BTW.
Not quite, what you get is (choose one of the following):
1) Luck Bonus to Fort save equal to Charisma bonus + Immunity to Poison
2) Luck Bonus to Reflex save equal to Charisma Bonus + Evasion.
3) Luck Bonus to Will save equal to Charisma Bonus + Immunity to Fear.
4) Temporary hit points equal to 4d8 + Charisma Bonus.Not really all that overpowered considering it's a forth level spell that only lasts 1 to 4 rounds. Other 4th level spells that are as powerful (IMO)
Break Enchantment (free's subjects from enchantments, transmutations and curses)
Greater Invisibility (Stay invisible & attack, 1 round per level)
Rainbow Pattern (Fascinate 24HD worth of creatures!)
Globe of Invulnerability, Lesser (stops 1st to 3rd level spell effects)
Black Tentacles (Nuff Said)
Stoneskin (DR 10/Adamantine)
Contagion
Enervation (1d4 negative levels!)
Thanks for the update. This spell plays specifically to a Sorcerer's strength. An 8th level Sorc should be throwing those saves with a +6 to +9 bonus, that stacks with resistance. As an immediate action spell, and with the spell slots available to a Sorc, saves become trivial very quickly. And the Sorc need not plan ahead to use this. I love Sorcerers, but this makes me think of cheese.
This affects magic-item selection, as well. The most common save boosting item is the Cloak of Resistance. In 3.5 this was a problem for the Sorc, as the most common Cha boosting item was also a cloak. PF fixed this, so now the PF Sorc can have the Cloak of Resistance, the Headband, and this yummy spell.
These types of feat-replacing spells, especially for the Sorc who has the spell slots to use them as needed, allow the Sorc to concentrate on metamagic (or other feats/magic items), and increase the Sorc's relative power as a result. In 3.5 the Sorc could use the boost, but combined with 3.5 PrC's or the PF fixes to the Sorc, seem a little unbalancing to me.
Maybe you missed the Diviner's class abilities which makes this spell look weak.
Nerveskitter is one of the better spells in the book, decent power level, makes first level spells a bit more useful and it's a bit flavorful. If you think it's that bad then consider having it so it doesn't stack with Improved Initiative.
Diviner's class ability is good, but that's a rather narrow focus used to beat a 1st level spell. At least Skitter doesn't scale, +5 is no guarantee, and it does use up your immediate/swift action your first turn.
Edit: And all other things being equal, the Skitter critter has the advantage over the Diviner until the Diviner is 6th level.
Thanks for the update. This spell plays specifically to a Sorcerer's strength. An 8th level Sorc should be throwing those saves with a +6 to +9 bonus, that stacks with resistance. As an immediate action spell, and with the spell slots available to a Sorc, saves become trivial very quickly. And the Sorc need not plan ahead to use this. I love Sorcerers, but this makes me think of cheese.This affects magic-item selection, as well. The most common save boosting item is the Cloak of Resistance. In 3.5 this was a problem for the Sorc, as the most common Cha boosting item was also a cloak. PF fixed this, so now the PF Sorc can have the Cloak of Resistance, the Headband, and this yummy spell.
These types of feat-replacing spells, especially for the Sorc who has the spell slots to use them as needed, allow the Sorc to concentrate on metamagic (or other feats/magic items), and increase the Sorc's relative power as a result. In 3.5 the Sorc could use the boost, but combined with 3.5 PrC's or the PF fixes to the Sorc, seem a little unbalancing to me.
Doesn't matter how many slots the sorcerer has, he has a limited number of spells known. So, he's either getting Enervation or Black Tentacles, or he's getting this spell. Is this a nice spell? Yes. Is it something that is vital to a sorcerer? No. Is it as useful as the other spells I listed? No. This means the sorcerer won't be picking this spell up until he has 3 or more level 4 spells known, so it's a level 15+ gain in my book. At that level, it's not a game changer.
Doesn't matter how many slots the sorcerer has, he has a limited number of spells known. So, he's either getting Enervation or Black Tentacles, or he's getting this spell. Is this a nice spell? Yes. Is it something that is vital to a sorcerer? No. Is it as useful as the other spells I listed? No. This means the sorcerer won't be picking this spell up until he has 3 or more level 4 spells known, so it's a level 15+ gain in my book. At that level, it's not a game changer.
Ignoring bloodline spells, an Arcane Sorcerer can have his third 4th level spell at 9th level, all others can have it at 11th level. In my current campaign, the 13th level Sorc would have saves of +21/+22/+22 with this spell.
Doesn't matter how many slots the sorcerer has, he has a limited number of spells known. So, he's either getting Enervation or Black Tentacles, or he's getting this spell. Is this a nice spell? Yes. Is it something that is vital to a sorcerer? No. Is it as useful as the other spells I listed? No. This means the sorcerer won't be picking this spell up until he has 3 or more level 4 spells known, so it's a level 15+ gain in my book. At that level, it's not a game changer.Ignoring bloodline spells, an Arcane Sorcerer can have his third 4th level spell at 9th level, all others can have it at 11th level. In my current campaign, the 13th level Sorc would have saves of +21/+22/+22 with this spell.
And you'd have to cast the spell 3 times to get that. And it'd last 1d4 rounds. Which means more than likely you wouldn't get those saves all at once with this spell because at least once you'd roll a 1.
Again, you're trading a 4th level spell for basically a two round buff to one save. Not Over Powered.
And you'd have to cast the spell 3 times to get that. And it'd last 1d4 rounds. Which means more than likely you wouldn't get those saves all at once with this spell because at least once you'd roll a 1.
Again, you're trading a 4th level spell for basically a two round buff to one save. Not Over Powered.
It's an immediate action spell. As soon as you're required to make a save you can cast it. So, in effect, each time you need a save you have that bonus available. You don't cast it 3 times, you cast it as the situation dictates. Having made this save you can react accordingly. Your chance of rolling a 1 is 5%. I'll take that chance.
It's an immediate action spell. As soon as you're required to make a save you can cast it. So, in effect, each time you need a save you have that bonus available. You don't cast it 3 times, you cast it as the situation dictates. Having made this save you can react accordingly. Your chance of rolling a 1 is 5%. I'll take that chance.And you'd have to cast the spell 3 times to get that. And it'd last 1d4 rounds. Which means more than likely you wouldn't get those saves all at once with this spell because at least once you'd roll a 1.
Again, you're trading a 4th level spell for basically a two round buff to one save. Not Over Powered.
Your chance of rolling a 1 is 25%. 1d4 = 1, 2, 3, 4. 25%.
Again, you're losing a 4th level spell for what amounts to a one round save.
Your chance of rolling a 1 is 25%. 1d4 = 1, 2, 3, 4. 25%.He's talking about rolling a 1 for the saving throw, not the duration.
I understand that. That is besides the point though. He is responding to my comment about rolling a one, and I specifically stated I was talking about the duration of the spell, not the saving throw, so I corrected him.
Your chance of rolling a 1 is 25%. 1d4 = 1, 2, 3, 4. 25%.
Again, you're losing a 4th level spell for what amounts to a one round save.
Yes, the first save is definitely the one I want to make, because making that save allows me to attack, get away, buff, on my next action. Any additional bonus to saves after the initial use of RDF is gravy, as is the evasion or immunities. Yeah, I'll take this save my bacon spell every single time. What other spell duplicates this ability? Those other spells you listed at least have comparable substitutes available.
Dont get me wrong but since there are mechanics of a sort for players to invent their own spells and/or magic items, I dont see anything particular about the contents of the "Spell Compedium" and "Magic Item Compedium" that cant be renamed and translated directly into Pathfinder - otherwise people would have to be careful (as would Paizo) of adding new material to the game incase its too close to anything found in those books...and thats just plain awkward and clunky (and not to mention a PITA for 3rd party designers)
Aside from some spells that could be tweaked ("Phantasmal Assailants" anyone?, 8 Dex and 8 Wis damage on two failed saves (4 per stat if you fail one), all for a 2nd level spell) the spells work just fine.
Well apart from Assassin spells, theyre pretty much moot now since the class lost that spellcasting ability (not a good idea IMHO) which really gave an Assassin a bit of a edge in unpredictable ways.
What constitues as part of the OGL I am aware of...but the main books encourage players to make up/create their own spells and items, so in theory that should allow someone to carry over work from spellbooks and magic items legally using that loophole as it were, same would go for monsters too - change a little about how it works, rename it and you'll have something thats legally a different product but works nonetheless.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Dont get me wrong but since there are mechanics of a sort for players to invent their own spells and/or magic items, I dont see anything particular about the contents of the "Spell Compedium" and "Magic Item Compedium" that cant be renamed and translated directly into Pathfinder - otherwise people would have to be careful (as would Paizo) of adding new material to the game incase its too close to anything found in those books...and thats just plain awkward and clunky (and not to mention a PITA for 3rd party designers)No. This isn't allowed by the OGL. It's very shady under copyright law. And the contributors to Spell Compendium include authors who are now Paizo staff and would prefer that other authors not shamelessly rip off their own creative work, and thus afford that respect to their peers.
So that's not going to be happening, ever.
Amen.
People are often quick to condemn splat books, but there are some good things to come out of those books. Much like when a new set of Magic is released there are "broken" cards and "casual" cards. These books work the same way.
I propose a banned list for SC. What are the problem spells that should be ignored? I'm a goose for the gander kind of guy. If the players can do it so can the NPCs and vice versa. If it's too powerful for the BBEG then it shouldn't exist. This policy has worked out for me so far and I'm wondering how other people have handled the overpowered aspect of splat books. It seems many people just ban the use of the books outright. Is this a good policy? People spent good money on these books, for a DM to ignore them seems unreasonable.
I've also noticed another disturbing trend of DMs only allowing Pathfinder core. The purpose of Pathfinder was to allow 3.5 to thrive. Ignoring previously published books feels wrong. Can a book like SC be saved? Are there aspects to it that should be encouraged in a campaign?
Just a thought.
Dont get me wrong but since there are mechanics of a sort for players to invent their own spells and/or magic items, I dont see anything particular about the contents of the "Spell Compedium" and "Magic Item Compedium" that cant be renamed and translated directly into Pathfinder - otherwise people would have to be careful (as would Paizo) of adding new material to the game incase its too close to anything found in those books...and thats just plain awkward and clunky (and not to mention a PITA for 3rd party designers)No. This isn't allowed by the OGL. It's very shady under copyright law. And the contributors to Spell Compendium include authors who are now Paizo staff and would prefer that other authors not shamelessly rip off their own creative work, and thus afford that respect to their peers.
So that's not going to be happening, ever.
Nor should it need to. Why release a book that contains 90% material that is already printed in a book? If you want the SC contents, you can use it as is - that's what backwards compatibility was all about, after all.
I am sure there will be spell compendiums released in the future from Paizo, after sufficient material has been accumulated through other sources, but for the most part I doubt that there will be many repeats from the SC contained therin, and those that are will be accidental.