New spell and magic item concepts: Am i truly in a minority?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Jhidurievdrioshka wrote:
I dont disagree with third. I also think spontaneous immolation would be a decent base for your spell which would also put it at 3rd.

I'm not familiar with Spontaneous Immolation, where is that spell from, i'm curious?


Ultimate combat I believe... <- click for link.

1: Your spells first advantage over both of these spells is it requires no material component. I know. Small potatoes but it's something...

2: Damage type. Negative energy is not a common thing to have a resistance for. I consider this to be more powerful than acid or fire, and

3: Then we have to talk about damage, but its not just as simple as talking about total spectrums, averages and minimums. We've got to address all 3.

assuming average rolls for damage an acid arrow has a range of 4-28. Average damage from immolation starts stronger at 9 (save for half) 4 and you can pretty much shut it down with a good saving throw. Even if it took a few rounds you can typically expect to shut immolation down after about 15 damage or so worst case scenario.

Since there's no way to shut down the damage your spell does (put out the fire, neutralize acid) it means you're very likely to get that 15 damage no matter how good a person's saves are. Its top end is about the same as an acid arrow but with no prayer of early relief, and with no way to shut it down the "average minimum" that you'd arrive at with a stellar 10 saves out of 10 still leaves you taking 10d6/2. average of 15. three times higher than the spells we're comparing it to.

To say that its no worse than an acid arrow in maximum damage is forgetting that in order for an acid arrow to max out in damage you have to be 18th level, where your spell surpasses its damage peak by level 10.

3 for sure. Maybe 4. No way a 2.

Silver Crusade

Jhidurievdrioshka wrote:

Ultimate combat I believe... <- click for link.

1: Your spells first advantage over both of these spells is it requires no material component.
Acid arrow is longer range shorter duration, immolation is medium range but lasts until you save

2: Damage type. Negative energy is not a common thing to have a resistance for. I consider this to be more powerful than acid or fire, and

3: Then we have to talk about damage, but its not just as simple as talking about total spectrums, averages and minimums. We've got to address all 3.

assuming average rolls for damage an acid arrow has a range of 4-28. Average damage from immolation starts stronger at 9 (save for half) 4 and you can pretty much shut it down with a good saving throw. Even if it took a few rounds you can typically expect to shut immolation down after about 15 damage or so worst case scenario.

Since there's no way to shut down the damage your spell does (put out the fire, neutralize acid) it means you're very likely to get that 15 damage no matter how good a person's saves are. Its top end is about the same as an acid arrow but with no prayer of early relief.

3 for sure. Maybe 4. No way a 2.

Lol, yep, that's one book i still do not have.

As a rule, i try to contain material components for more serious or dangerous effects.

Correct, negative energy resistance is not a common thing. The balance in this also comes from the fact that not every encounter will involve opponents with poor Fort saves. Although there is no resistance per say that i know of for the descriptor, the bulk of most encounters generally does not include opponents with resistance to fire or acid as examples. At least not in my experience with PF thus far.

Finally, not to beat a dead horse, my major decision to place it at third was the lack of an AoE component to the spell. Agreed, 2nd level is too low for what i designed, 3rd absolutely, 4th level would be the spell i posted plus the ability to cast it on an undead minion <obviously the strongest> to give him a heal over time effect as an example. Then it becomes a DoT or a HoT which is a multi-purpose spell and thus rates a higher level to help balance it out.


I agree. I'd certainly be willing to set this as a level 2 if the damage and saving throw for it matched the immolation saves...

Then its basically a cookie cutter where you replace fire with negative energy...

The bad news? less things have resistance to negative energy. The good news? It's not burning up your stuff!


Jhidurievdrioshka wrote:
I dont punish people for being creative. I say you have to have a foundation off of which to develop new and unusual magics, so the foundation is the spell of the preceding level. Thank you for isolating my motives to the one that you find most offensive though.

The foundation from which to develop new and unusual magic would be a library, a lab, and as many ranks in Knowledge/Arcana for which you qualify, plus time and money spent in research.

It's arbitrary and ridiculous to bump a new spell up a level from comparable magics: was the first Fireball a 4th level spell?

Now, you have brought up points regarding the specific examples posted that might, arguably, justify being a higher level than was originally presented... but being a new spell is not a good reason, in my opinion, in and of itself to raise a spell above its peers' level.

All it does is continually relegate researched spells to be less-effective than their inherent design.

And if you fail to specify your motives, as you did in the post to which I originally replied, don't be surprised when people react to the effect of your policy rather than the intent.


Oh i'm definitely not surprised by any reaction on these forums... Overreaction is the modus operandi around here.

Tirade first, rationalise second. Like any good paladin.


Perhaps a better way to phrase my philosophy is that generally speaking anyone who is making a new spell is trying to make something that no other spell can accomplish, and if the existing spell can't accomplish it, then the spell you're creating has a greater chance of being better than, not equal to, ergo more powerful than whatever you're saying it's 'like'...

Although that may be a better way to phrase it, like most folks on these forums i'm not in the habit of phrasing it the better way. (and to quote a paizo employee's recent post theres only so much we can overexplain something before the book becomes 570 pages)...

I like to start from the standpoint that its more powerful than you think it is, and then explain to me why it should be a lower level spell... If its a convincing argument I'm not above lowering a spells level...

As we clearly found out this particular spell was entirely of that variety... Clearly if we compared it to a fireball the tradeoff is more powerful for being a wonky damage type and less powerful for not being AoE... Then possibly back to more powerful because it cannot be 'evaded'... Truthfully the fireball still has a big advantage in raw damage output so making it a 4 wouldnt make much sense... so then we try to justify a 3 and then a 2 and just see how far we can go.

I prefer working my way down instead of working my way up exclusively because every custom spell thats ever made has a knack for being more powerful than whatever the creator says it is similar to, which turned out to be true. It just happens to be a safe bet.

Rapid fire ire is what you get in a room with 10000 people who've had a GM at one time that was an unflinching total >insert expletives at your liesure<...

So yeah. No suprises here.


When I GM, I am very hesitant to allow player designed custom spells and magic items.

1) Balance - Yes, I know balance is not some all powerful god. But my experience says that most of the time I've allowed a player to design his own new magic item or spell, that character is suddenly and clearly more powerful than all the other characters at the table.

2) Rarely needed - I have a player that constantly wants to design new X (class, PrC, items, spells, etc...). However, with the huge number of options that already exist. We can almost always find something close enough to fulfill the concept that he is looking for. Clear back in 1st ed, I was very likely to allow a lot more since there was only 1 small book that had all the listed possibilities. Most of the weird concepts we wanted to try could NOT be done within the rule list.

3) Group dynamics – I have some players I would let do this because I trust them. But it is very difficult to then tell another friend “You can’t because I don’t trust you to be reasonable.”

4) We are not terrifically experienced in this rule set – If (like 25 years ago) we all played several times every week and had played nearly every possible class, race, spell, item combination; then yes, I would be more likely to allow it. But we play usually twice a month, only switched to PF about a year ago, and 2 of the players are fairly new to this type of gaming. We often have a hard enough time trying to figure out what can be done with the options currently in place, anytime more are added it just increases the confusion.

5) History says I’m bad at determining the power of something – In the past when I made custom content it usually ended up very over powered. For example: way back in the dark ages, we made up a spell that was very similar to contingency for multiple spells. We decided to make it a 3rd level spell. Suddenly every spell caster is using it all the time. A while later there was a new book and a less powerful version was a 6th level spell. Hung, no wonder it seemed like such a great spell. That kind of thing happened over and over again.

6) Hassle – You can call it lazy, but it really can be a pain to try and determine if something is too over powered. A long time ago: when a player designed something new, I would make up groups of monsters and NPC’s, stage fights, and evaluate the results caused by the item vs. the potential alternatives. I just won’t commit that percentage of my free time to it anymore. If I am being GM, I already have a carp load of stuff I have to do to get ready for every session.

Now having said all that, I am not completely closed to the subject. But I can easily understand why some GM’s are.

If the player has a concept that he has really tried to do within the current rules and it really can’t be done, then I will look into it and work with him. But I usually find he hasn’t really tried to see if it can be done with the current rules. And once we figure out what level or cost it should have, he no longer wants it.


Jhidurievdrioshka wrote:

Oh i'm definitely not surprised by any reaction on these forums... Overreaction is the modus operandi around here.

Tirade first, rationalise second. Like any good paladin.

So sorry, but "you're punishing people for being creative" is neither a tirade nor an overreaction to a flat "must be level+1 to comparable spells" for spell research.

As stated in your initial post on the subject, that's a shoddy, lazy standard; sans any discussion of the thought behind it, if applied its primary effect -- intended or not -- would be to discourage spell research at all.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
LazarX wrote:
taepodong wrote:

The bottom line is it is that GM's game and s/he can allow/forbid whatever s/he wants.

That's all well and good, but this GM also sounds like a douche.
Don't you think that it's a bit early to make that call considering that we've only heard from one side, one with a vested interest? I know that dumping on GM's is popular sport here on the boards, ever consider that this overall attitude of player entitlement is one of the reasons so few people volunteer for the job?
Yep, sorry if you got that impression. I don't consider myself an entitled player in the sense that i deserve approval of anything i create or that since i'm the player, i can do no wrong. I am, however, entitled to at least a courtesy reason as to why? Give me a logical reason. Honesty goes a long way with me and if it simply boiled down to it being a lot of extra work he isn't comfortable with, i can understand it. You had mentioned that without items or spells to look at, you couldn't make any real judgement one way or the other. Well, i put some examples up for you and others to check out. I admitted that my original post was born more out of frustration than objectivity. If you don't believe me that i can't at least get an idea looked at or a reason why something is disallowed, nothing i can say will change your mind.

Yes you put up some examples. Excuse me if I don't make a quick reply, because I'd have to put in the same amount of work in judging those as I would in approving an item put forward by one of my players. If I find the time soon enough, I'll respond to one of them. Making a snap judgement FOR an item is a lot worse than making a knee jerk reaction to one. Because it's always a lot more of an issue taking something back once you've allowed it as opposed to not approving it right away.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Alitan wrote:
Jhidurievdrioshka wrote:
I dont punish people for being creative. I say you have to have a foundation off of which to develop new and unusual magics, so the foundation is the spell of the preceding level. Thank you for isolating my motives to the one that you find most offensive though.

The foundation from which to develop new and unusual magic would be a library, a lab, and as many ranks in Knowledge/Arcana for which you qualify, plus time and money spent in research.

It's arbitrary and ridiculous to bump a new spell up a level from comparable magics: was the first Fireball a 4th level spell?

Now, you have brought up points regarding the specific examples posted that might, arguably, justify being a higher level than was originally presented... but being a new spell is not a good reason, in my opinion, in and of itself to raise a spell above its peers' level.

All it does is continually relegate researched spells to be less-effective than their inherent design.

And if you fail to specify your motives, as you did in the post to which I originally replied, don't be surprised when people react to the effect of your policy rather than the intent.

But a Negative Energy Fireball IS more powerful than the standard spell, even with the same damage, because practically nothing has resistance to it, and you're drawing directly from the energy planes as opposed to evoking an element.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Yeah, it's third level.

The damage cap is a third level spell.
It forces a concentration check every round for every spell. That's 15+2x spell level every time a caster wants to do something.
it's negative energy damage, not elemental. Usually that means stepping things down a die in size, like using force damage.
It can heal undead...negative energy effects heal undead.
Unlike Acid Arrow, there's no way to STOP the damage. Unlike Scorching Ray, there's no way to evade it. Unlike Fireball, you don't save for half or full, or 0 w evasion...you're basically going to end up taking 3/4 damage.
making it single target lets you keep the d6 damage, but NO WAY to get rid of it? Not even a dispel magic, remove curse, positive energy burst, anything?
This could easily be a slow, inexorable, unavoidable death to anyone wounded. Nasty for a level 3 spell.

I'd add at least a couple ways to get rid of the effect. Channelling, cure spells, dispels, remove curse, etc.

==Aelryinth


Sorry for this little side topic:

NobodysHome wrote:


Here's a clear example: I wanted a "Preserve Plants" spell that would preserve herbs for 2 weeks. I figured it would be roughly a 1st-level druid spell, because in game terms it doesn't seem all that useful.

I, as a GM would have told you to use purify food and drink on it daily to keep it "fresh" enough to eat or use as medicine. It would not however keep it in a state where you could replant it or bring it back to life with other spells that have a limited time frame after death when they still work.

Back to topic: You don't always have to invent ne stuff. Sometimes you can just find creative uses for existing stuff.
And for the GM allowing this is less tricky than allowing new stuff.

Silver Crusade

Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, it's third level.

The damage cap is a third level spell.
It forces a concentration check every round for every spell. That's 15+2x spell level every time a caster wants to do something.
it's negative energy damage, not elemental. Usually that means stepping things down a die in size, like using force damage.
It can heal undead...negative energy effects heal undead.
Unlike Acid Arrow, there's no way to STOP the damage. Unlike Scorching Ray, there's no way to evade it. Unlike Fireball, you don't save for half or full, or 0 w evasion...you're basically going to end up taking 3/4 damage.
making it single target lets you keep the d6 damage, but NO WAY to get rid of it? Not even a dispel magic, remove curse, positive energy burst, anything?
This could easily be a slow, inexorable, unavoidable death to anyone wounded. Nasty for a level 3 spell.

I'd add at least a couple ways to get rid of the effect. Channelling, cure spells, dispels, remove curse, etc.

==Aelryinth

Forgive me for that oversight. That's a bad habit i have, i noted curse after the spell name and it is subject to remove curse. My mistake was in assuming that people would understand that if a spell is noted as curse, it is always subject to remove curse. You guys keep me on my toes, thank you :)


Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, it's third level.

The damage cap is a third level spell.
It forces a concentration check every round for every spell. That's 15+2x spell level every time a caster wants to do something.
it's negative energy damage, not elemental. Usually that means stepping things down a die in size, like using force damage.
It can heal undead...negative energy effects heal undead.
Unlike Acid Arrow, there's no way to STOP the damage. Unlike Scorching Ray, there's no way to evade it. Unlike Fireball, you don't save for half or full, or 0 w evasion...you're basically going to end up taking 3/4 damage.
making it single target lets you keep the d6 damage, but NO WAY to get rid of it? Not even a dispel magic, remove curse, positive energy burst, anything?
This could easily be a slow, inexorable, unavoidable death to anyone wounded. Nasty for a level 3 spell.

I'd add at least a couple ways to get rid of the effect. Channelling, cure spells, dispels, remove curse, etc.

==Aelryinth

I agree with you that it fits as a 3rd level spell, but it's not quite as dangerous as you paint it. The concentration formula you cited, 15 + (2 x spell level), is for casting on the defensive, not casting while taking continuous damage. THAT formula is 10 + (1/2 damage last deal) + spell level.

Further, while I would agree that the text of the spell should make explicit what spells or effects will remove it (as its creator indicated it's a kind of curse, Remove Curse and Break Enchantment should probably make that list), no text is necessary to indicate that Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic will do the job. They can affect ANY active spell effect unless a spell's wording specifically says otherwise.


Umbranus wrote:

Sorry for this little side topic:

NobodysHome wrote:


Here's a clear example: I wanted a "Preserve Plants" spell that would preserve herbs for 2 weeks. I figured it would be roughly a 1st-level druid spell, because in game terms it doesn't seem all that useful.

I, as a GM would have told you to use purify food and drink on it daily to keep it "fresh" enough to eat or use as medicine. It would not however keep it in a state where you could replant it or bring it back to life with other spells that have a limited time frame after death when they still work.

Back to topic: You don't always have to invent ne stuff. Sometimes you can just find creative uses for existing stuff.
And for the GM allowing this is less tricky than allowing new stuff.

Unfortunately, the effect I'm looking for is to keep a bouquet of roses fresh *after* I've given them to the recipient. Sneaking into her house daily to cast spells might be seen as... a tad forward?


just like a force fireball. i have no problems with this negative energy acid arrow clone.


  • the concentration check is a piece of cake for any level appropriate decently built caster
  • it can be cured by remove curse or break enchantment
  • it just maxes out early. not a big deal
  • the fortitude save, is one that is extremely easy for most foes to make, and even most PCs
  • it may not have a common resistance, but it heals undead, dhampirs, and most bones oracles or death domain clerics
  • i don't give a damn if it ignores evasion. it's not like the damage is sufficient anyway. evasion makes surviving a nuclear explosion way to easy.
  • i feel it is fine for a 2nd level spell

3rd level forceball that deals the same damage as a fireball


  • blockable by shield
  • still subject to evasion
  • still has spell resistance
  • deals 35 average damage on a failed save, big deal
  • doesn't destroy loot in a non-repairable way
  • doesn't come with Arson charges

Silver Crusade

General Necromancy spells and items are one thing, but there is a, non-general i guess would be the way to put it, spell idea that i am trying make work. I would like your take on the concept.

As the Leadership feat allows for the attracting of followers and a cohort, i had the idea for a 9th level spell that allows the creation of what is in effect a cohort, a personal Lieutenant to the Necromancer.

I named the spell Norgrim's Chosen. As i need to pick up the Beastiary book(s), i don't have any specific write up on the undead cohort itself, sorry.

I was considering the need for using two wish spells to actually finalize its creation, one to instill an unwavering loyalty to the caster and a final wish that could allow the cohort the use of two or even three different feats, 1/day or something to that effect.

Since i am not up on cohorts nearly as much as i should be, i wasn't sure how the feats thing should be handled. I wanted his Chosen to have enough feats to make it a viable cohort, but not so many that its rediculous.

As far as the concept goes and what i have thought of up to this point, what do you folks think overall?


NobodysHome wrote:


Unfortunately, the effect I'm looking for is to keep a bouquet of roses fresh *after* I've given them to the recipient. Sneaking into her house daily to cast spells might be seen as... a tad forward?

Ok so purify food and drink really doesn't work.


Norgrim Malgus wrote:

I wanted to post some of the ideas i had on paper so you folks can get a better idea of what i was trying to introduce.

Norgrim's Little Slice of Death (Curse):
Necromancy
Level: Sorcerer/Wizard 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Range: Medium (100ft. + 10ft/level)
Duration: 1 round/level (10 rounds total)
Saving Throw: Fort 1/2
Spell Resistance: Yes
Target: 1 Target

This spell inflicts a curse upon the target which takes 1D6 Negative Energy Damage per round. A successful save results in half damage for that round.

This is quite weak for a 3rd-level spell. It could probably be 2nd-level but with a max duration of 5 rounds instead. Compared to Melf's Acid Arrow, sure there's no attack roll, but there's a save (which is probably weaker) and it can't splash on enemies.

Quote:

Norgrim's Siege Construct:

Conjuration/Necromancy
Level: Sorcerer/Wizard 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Range: Close (25ft. + 5ft/level)
Target: Any chosen by caster
Duration: 1 Round/Level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This spell brings forth a Ballista in the form of a bone construct. Each round it can fire one bone missile at any target designated by the caster. The caster must use a standard action to use the Ballista to attack. If the caster chooses to cast another spell, the Ballista does not fire for that round. The Ballista attacks using the casters INT or CHA modifier for its attack bonus. As a construct, it has hit points equal to the caster's level +5.
Material Component: A minature carving of a Ballista that costs 10 GP.

My issue with this spell is the presentation rather than the rules. The problem is I don't know it. I could look up the rules for a ballista, but that's twice the work. Worse, a ballista might not be balanced, or maybe too strong at some levels and too weak at others.

This spell is pretty similar to Call Lightning and should be balanced that way. (Enemies can just crush the ballista, but that means they're not ganking the wizard.) Damage should be based on caster level and stated in the spell.

Quote:

Norgrim's Baleful Boon:

Necromancy
Level: Sorcerer/Wizard 5
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Range: Close (25ft. + 5ft/level)
Target: 1 undead/level (Max 10), no two of which can be more than 30ft...

Realizing that as his skill in the Necromantic arts improves, his ability to create, control & command undead will expand. Even though he takes great pride in having a small army of undead at his call, Norgrim understood the problems that having several undead accompanying him could create. He decided to look into ways to keep his minions close, but not in plain view. The result of his research was a robe that allowed him to transport his creations. He decided to imbue the robe with an extra-dimensional ability that would allow him to "store" undead and could then be summoned for defense with a command word. He also added enchantments that would make his own spells more difficult to resist and in turn, make him more resistant to necromantic effects.

- Can store a number of undead equal to 2x caster level
- Adds a +2 enhancement bonus to Spell Penetration, Necromantic spells only
- +2 to opponents save DC's, Necromancy only
- +2 to wearer's saves versus Necromancy

This isn't a spell, but an item. It's also covering too many areas.

There's no need for save DC boosts. Those are too easy to come by as it is (and they're never named). If you're a necromancer, take Spell Focus (Necromancy). Nothing more is needed. (Same with the saves versus necromancy, there's already a feat for that.)

The casting time is too short. This is basically a ritual like Drawmij's Instant Summons (a 6th-level spell) and it's potentially a lot stronger. You can store a vampire cohort in there if you so chose.

The ability to store an army of undead can cause a can of worms. I'm recalling an example from 4e, where there's a ritual that makes you look like an undead. Naturally some players tried to abuse it, by performing the ritual over an entire city, in a defense against an undead horde. (They figured the undead wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I think the rules for the ritual actually said something about that, based on the undead's intelligence.) The DM could counter that by figuring out how long that would take (at 5 or more minutes per square area performed, it takes a long time to cover a city), figuring out the cost (ritual components aren't cheap), and of course the undead commander having spies or scrying to see what's going on in town. Still, that's increasing the DM's workload by a lot.

Another note, this should clearly state whether it works on enemy undead (and it shouldn't). That would be less of an issue if the casting time were appropriate. As written, you could "win" an encounter against the undead with this one spell, and I'm pretty sure that was not your intention.

Kydeem wrote:
5) History says I’m bad at determining the power of something – In the past when I made custom content it usually ended up very over powered. For example: way back in the dark ages, we made up a spell that was very similar to contingency for multiple spells. We decided to make it a 3rd level spell. Suddenly every spell caster is using it all the time. A while later there was a new book and a less powerful version was a 6th level spell. Hung, no wonder it seemed like such a great spell. That kind of thing happened over and over again.

You and me both. I thought I knew how to balance 4e inside out and backwards. Then I made the mistake of letting a player play a battlerager fighter and another use Moment of Glory (a broken cleric power). The build and power got banned very quickly, and the fighter was retired as a result. DMs often fear making a mistake this way. It's one reason I try to limit non-core stuff in my games (regardless of edition; I no longer run 3.x or Pathfinder, but when I was running 3.x I usually only allowed core + setting books, and maybe one experimental book like Book of Nine Swords).

Or to put it another way, if I screw up by making an overpowered monsters or encounter, I can fix that easily, even nerfing in the midst of an encounter (hopefully without the players noticing!). If I screw up by letting a player have something overpowered, there's drama getting rid of it, and it might be several sessions before I realize what a problem it could be.

Silver Crusade

Kimera757 wrote:
Norgrim Malgus wrote:

I wanted to post some of the ideas i had on paper so you folks can get a better idea of what i was trying to introduce.

Norgrim's Little Slice of Death (Curse):
Necromancy
Level: Sorcerer/Wizard 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Range: Medium (100ft. + 10ft/level)
Duration: 1 round/level (10 rounds total)
Saving Throw: Fort 1/2
Spell Resistance: Yes
Target: 1 Target

This spell inflicts a curse upon the target which takes 1D6 Negative Energy Damage per round. A successful save results in half damage for that round.

This is quite weak for a 3rd-level spell. It could probably be 2nd-level but with a max duration of 5 rounds instead. Compared to Melf's Acid Arrow, sure there's no attack roll, but there's a save (which is probably weaker) and it can't splash on enemies.

Quote:

Norgrim's Siege Construct:

Conjuration/Necromancy
Level: Sorcerer/Wizard 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Range: Close (25ft. + 5ft/level)
Target: Any chosen by caster
Duration: 1 Round/Level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This spell brings forth a Ballista in the form of a bone construct. Each round it can fire one bone missile at any target designated by the caster. The caster must use a standard action to use the Ballista to attack. If the caster chooses to cast another spell, the Ballista does not fire for that round. The Ballista attacks using the casters INT or CHA modifier for its attack bonus. As a construct, it has hit points equal to the caster's level +5.
Material Component: A minature carving of a Ballista that costs 10 GP.

My issue with this spell is the presentation rather than the rules. The problem is I don't know it. I could look up the rules for a ballista, but that's twice the work. Worse, a ballista might not be balanced, or maybe too strong at some levels and too weak at others.

This spell is pretty similar to Call Lightning and should be balanced that way. (Enemies can just crush the ballista,...

There has been a little back and forth regarding the right level for Norgrim's Little Slice of Death, but the overall concensus was to keep it at 3rd. I'm fine with it at 3rd and i want to be prepared for a GM to make the final call on it at 3rd. If he wants to reduce it to 2nd, no problem, but in bringing a new spell for adjudication, i like to err on the side of caution as it were.

The Construct spell was something i altered a bit further into the thread. I had the right weapon in my mind, just not in practice. Instead of a Ballista, it was changed to the Roman Scorpio which was anti-troop. The damage was reduced from 3D8 to 2D8. It can fire every other round but the caster uses a standard action to select a target and attack with it. It reloads on its own as a function of the spell so every other round made sense. 2D8 balances to the potential weapon damage a melee character such as a fighter can cause with a longsword in two rounds. It has hit points equal to the caster's level +5 and Hardness 5.

Norgrim's Baleful Boon is seperate from the Robes, sorry for the confusion, i didn't spread the two far enough apart i guess.

I understand Spell Focus and such, but the bonuses represent what the robes provide above and beyond any feats and no, you are correct, the robes do not work against unfriendly undead. That was actually noted in the robes description; it allows the transport of his creations.


LazarX wrote:
Alitan wrote:


Now, you have brought up points regarding the specific examples posted that might, arguably, justify being a higher level than was originally presented... but being a new spell is not a good reason, in my opinion, in and of itself to raise a spell above its peers' level.

^Edited for emphasis^

But a Negative Energy Fireball IS more powerful than the standard spell, even with the same damage, because practically nothing has resistance to it, and you're drawing directly from the energy planes as opposed to evoking an element.

I'm not arguing that a negative energy fireball is an improvement on the standard fireball. I was objecting to a blanket "it's a new spell, so (despite being essentially comparable to spells of [x] level) it has to be level [x+1]."

A general argument about spell research, not a specific argument about a particular researched spell. Hope that clarifies things.

Shadow Lodge

NobodysHome wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

Sorry for this little side topic:

NobodysHome wrote:


Here's a clear example: I wanted a "Preserve Plants" spell that would preserve herbs for 2 weeks. I figured it would be roughly a 1st-level druid spell, because in game terms it doesn't seem all that useful.

I, as a GM would have told you to use purify food and drink on it daily to keep it "fresh" enough to eat or use as medicine. It would not however keep it in a state where you could replant it or bring it back to life with other spells that have a limited time frame after death when they still work.

Back to topic: You don't always have to invent ne stuff. Sometimes you can just find creative uses for existing stuff.
And for the GM allowing this is less tricky than allowing new stuff.

Unfortunately, the effect I'm looking for is to keep a bouquet of roses fresh *after* I've given them to the recipient. Sneaking into her house daily to cast spells might be seen as... a tad forward?

Then perhaps a 1st level version of Purify Food and Drink with duration 1 day/level instead of instantaneous? And add a line stating that the spell only removes poisons present at casting, and though it prevents food from degrading over the duration it doesn't prevent it from being re-poisoned? I feel like the loss of cantrip/orison status prevents a lot of abuse, especially without long-term anti-poison action. Though the two-week duration from level 1 is a bit overpowered.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

just like a force fireball. i have no problems with this negative energy acid arrow clone.


  • the concentration check is a piece of cake for any level appropriate decently built caster
  • it can be cured by remove curse or break enchantment
  • it just maxes out early. not a big deal
  • the fortitude save, is one that is extremely easy for most foes to make, and even most PCs
  • it may not have a common resistance, but it heals undead, dhampirs, and most bones oracles or death domain clerics
  • i don't give a damn if it ignores evasion. it's not like the damage is sufficient anyway. evasion makes surviving a nuclear explosion way to easy.
  • i feel it is fine for a 2nd level spell

3rd level forceball that deals the same damage as a fireball


  • blockable by shield
  • still subject to evasion
  • still has spell resistance
  • deals 35 average damage on a failed save, big deal
  • doesn't destroy loot in a non-repairable way
  • doesn't come with Arson charges

The concentration check might be easy. And you still might miss it.

Being cured by rmv Curse or break enchantment means you need a 3rd level spell, which must be on hand, to break it. And Break enchantment is a 1 min casting time, which means the spell will run its course before you can break it. Compare that to: Pouring a wine or waterskin on the wound.
The fortitude save means it's aimed at arcane spellcasters...adn there are lots of monsters with less then stellar fort saves.
It functions as a 10d6 3rd level healing spell...with more potency then Inflict Serious Wounds.
Mettle is much harder to come by then evasion. And rogues have poor fort saves.

Vs Fireball/Forceball
Shield only blocks magic missiles.
Subject to evasion...but rare on monsters, as you've noted.
Still has spell resistance...but we know casters don't try to max that, right?
Does 35 damage if a non-optimized, non-meta using 10th level caster uses it. If they do use metas, or have class abilities, this does significantly more. Like, an Energized Maximized does a flat 90 damage.
Does force damage to loot. It's an AoE. It wouldn't melt through stuff, it would blow it apart.
Ignores all forms of standard elemental resistance...this is a big one. Much better then setting stuff on fire...you can use this attack against ANYTHING. And if you're a good blaster build, that's what you'll do.

There's direct analogues to this in the 3.5 Orb spells. Sonic and Force all did d4 dmg, the elementals did d6.

==Aelryinth


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As many have said, little slice of death is probably on par for a 3rd level spell, mostly because it does negative energy damage without needing an attack roll and there is no way to end the effect early except dispel magic or remove curse.

Siege construct is probably overpowered for a 2nd-level spell, even with the requirement that the wizard spend his own actions to fire it. For comparison, look at arcane cannon from Ultimate Combat, which has many of the same properties, but is a 7th-level wizard spell. You should also review the siege engines rules in the same book.

baleful boon looks roughly equivalent to a mass aid spell (without the +1 on attack rolls and saves vs. fear) that only affects undead. Since mass versions of spells are typically 4 spell levels higher (mass bull's strength, etc.), 5th-level might be a bit low for a wizard spell, even with the undead only restriction. Personally, I'd see it more of cleric 5, sorcerer/wizard 6. Also, the obsidian dagger is a focus component; the components are V, S, M, F.

The robes of dark subtlety are something I'd rework as a GM. The undead storage ability is over the top, IMO. I'd probably alter it to either something similar to a robe of bones with the undead figures being replenished after 1 week (or 1 month) or being able to cast summon monster III (either a human skeleton champion or 1d4+1 human skeletons, as if with the Skeleton Summoner feat) 3x/day and the ability to summon a skeletal creature (apply the skeleton template instead of a planar template) with a normal summon monster spell 1x/day. I'd also be reluctant to allow the school-specific bonuses on spell-penetration, save DCs, and saving throws; especially save DCs. The stock magic items I looked at all either grant an overall bonus on caster level checks to overcome spell resistance or a caster level bonus for spells with a specific descriptor (cold, fire, etc.). The items with bonuses to save DCs or saving throws were similarly limited to effect types (fear, visual effects, etc.) instead of entire schools. I would allow an overall enhancement bonus of up to +2 on caster level checks to penetrate spell resistance (equivalent to resplendent robes of the thespian or robes of the archmagi) and either an overall +2 resistance bonus to all saves or a limited +2 against a single effect (such as fear or negative energy). Any bonuses to save DCs would definitely be limited to a single effect.


The problem with comparing to other spells is that unless it's widely agreed that the published spell is at just the right level you'll get bad results.

Some stuff is underleveled. Haste, for example, should probably be level 4 so it comes on the scene after full martials get their first iterative. Some stuff is overleveled, like pretty much any high level blast that doesn't have a debuff rider. Some stuff scales so naturally or is so unique it could be nearly any level.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Aelryinth: You forgot the biggest reason of force > elemental. Force effects target ethereal (blink?) and incorporeal creatures normally. Normal elemental effects don't.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Yeah, that's a point. However, the biggest is the fact there's no elemental resistance, because TONS of creatures have elemental res. There's feats and MM rods and specific spells you can use against incorps, which are fairly rare foes.

Siege Construct is fairly close to Call Lightning, or even a monster summoning spell. It should have the damage it deals noted for a better comparison. I'd probably make it a move action to pick a target, but put it at level 3 and you're good.

==Aelryinth


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:

The problem with comparing to other spells is that unless it's widely agreed that the published spell is at just the right level you'll get bad results.

Some stuff is underleveled. Haste, for example, should probably be level 4 so it comes on the scene after full martials get their first iterative. Some stuff is overleveled, like pretty much any high level blast that doesn't have a debuff rider. Some stuff scales so naturally or is so unique it could be nearly any level.

Yes, there are spells that are powerful/weak for their level (expeditious retreat and protection from evil are almost certainly too strong for 1st level spells and direct damage spells don't scale well as you move into higher levels). However, just throwing your hands up and saying "RAW spell balance isn't perfect, so trying to fit in player designed spells is too hard" isn't very helpful.

If I'm misinterpreting what you were trying to say, I'm sorry, but some constructive criticism would go a lot farther.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Little Slice of Death? overpowered?

most fights don't even last a whole 10 rounds, so i doubt you will get the full 10d6.

and Arcane spellcasters tend to max their casting stat, and constitution. which means i doubt their fortitude is as poor as assumed.

Silver Crusade

Dragonchess Player wrote:

As many have said, little slice of death is probably on par for a 3rd level spell, mostly because it does negative energy damage without needing an attack roll and there is no way to end the effect early except dispel magic or remove curse.

Siege construct is probably overpowered for a 2nd-level spell, even with the requirement that the wizard spend his own actions to fire it. For comparison, look at arcane cannon from Ultimate Combat, which has many of the same properties, but is a 7th-level wizard spell. You should also review the siege engines rules in the same book.

baleful boon looks roughly equivalent to a mass aid spell (without the +1 on attack rolls and saves vs. fear) that only affects undead. Since mass versions of spells are typically 4 spell levels higher (mass bull's strength, etc.), 5th-level might be a bit low for a wizard spell, even with the undead only restriction. Personally, I'd see it more of cleric 5, sorcerer/wizard 6. Also, the obsidian dagger is a focus component; the components are V, S, M, F.

The robes of dark subtlety are something I'd rework as a GM. The undead storage ability is over the top, IMO. I'd probably alter it to either something similar to a robe of bones with the undead figures being replenished after 1 week (or 1 month) or being able to cast summon monster III (either a human skeleton champion or 1d4+1 human skeletons, as if with the Skeleton Summoner feat) 3x/day and the ability to summon a skeletal creature (apply the skeleton template instead of a planar template) with a normal summon monster spell 1x/day. I'd also be reluctant to allow the school-specific bonuses on spell-penetration, save DCs, and saving throws; especially save DCs. The stock magic items I looked at...

Yea, Little Slice of Death is a done deal for me. If you scroll up a bit on this thread, i made adjustments to the Construct spell, 3D8 was over the top due to my thinking of the Scorpio and using the Ballista, i didn't find out the name of the appropriate weapon i wanted until a day or so ago from someone linking it.

2D8 is on par with a melee character with a long sword. Both the spell and the long sword have the same damage potential. Since it can only fire every other round, it evens out so that as a 2nd level spell, it does not overshadow a Fighter, as an example.

I'll take a second look over the robes, but i am fond of the storage aspect. This item was intended for my necromancer towards the end of his career (campaign ends), so around 16+ level. I could limit the total HD of his undead that can stored in this fashion, but the idea of a nasty reality check for a group of opponents was just priceless :)


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Siege Construct is fairly close to Call Lightning, or even a monster summoning spell. It should have the damage it deals noted for a better comparison. I'd probably make it a move action to pick a target, but put it at level 3 and you're good.

I'd probably peg it at 4th as written, since it does physical damage instead of electrical damage (elemental immunities aren't a factor, can be used against constructs, etc.), has a better overall range (counting range increments as a missile fire device), and the missiles don't count as normal missiles for spells such as protection from normal missiles and wind wall. The ability to do criticals is also a factor.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
2D8 is on par with a melee character with a long sword. Both the spell and the long sword have the same damage potential. Since it can only fire every other round, it evens out so that as a 2nd level spell, it does not overshadow a Fighter, as an example.

As a melee attack, yes. As a ranged attack, no. Even at 2d8, the spell is the equivalent of a (weightless) heavy crossbow while under the effect of gravity bow that reloads itself (allowing the wizard to cast other spells while it reloads) with automatically generated ammunition. Basically, gravity bow (1st level wizard spell) + unseen servant (1st level wizard spell) + abundant ammunition (1st level wizard spell); three effects in one spell without needing to carry a weapon or ammunition in the first place. 2d8 vs 3d8 isn't the point, it's still overpowered for a 2nd level spell available to a 3rd level wizard.

Silver Crusade

Dragonchess Player wrote:
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
2D8 is on par with a melee character with a long sword. Both the spell and the long sword have the same damage potential. Since it can only fire every other round, it evens out so that as a 2nd level spell, it does not overshadow a Fighter, as an example.
As a melee attack, yes. As a ranged attack, no. Even at 2d8, the spell is the equivalent of a (weightless) heavy crossbow while under the effect of gravity bow that reloads itself (allowing the wizard to cast other spells while it reloads) with automatically generated ammunition. Basically, gravity bow (1st level wizard spell) + unseen servant (1st level wizard spell) + abundant ammunition (1st level wizard spell); three effects in one spell without needing to carry a weapon or ammunition in the first place. 2d8 vs 3d8 isn't the point, it's still overpowered for a 2nd level spell available to a 3rd level wizard.

Ooooh, i like Abundant Ammunition, that is a nice spell.

I appreciate you breaking down the three indivdual spells that actually make this spell. Gravity Bow to reload itself, i'm thinking the Unseen Servant is acting as the trigger man so to speak with Abundant Ammunition to account for the constant supply of munitions? Is that a fair interpretation overall?

I am trying to use the Words of Power effect chart to help zero in on the right spell levels for these ideas and three 1st level spells is as far as a Word Level of 4th will allow.

Even managing to justify why unseen servant is not functionally necessary, this would still fall into the 3rd level range and would need to be adjusted anyways, thank you for the pointers, that saved me a potential future headache.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

The problem with comparing to other spells is that unless it's widely agreed that the published spell is at just the right level you'll get bad results.

Some stuff is underleveled. Haste, for example, should probably be level 4 so it comes on the scene after full martials get their first iterative. Some stuff is overleveled, like pretty much any high level blast that doesn't have a debuff rider. Some stuff scales so naturally or is so unique it could be nearly any level.

Yes, there are spells that are powerful/weak for their level (expeditious retreat and protection from evil are almost certainly too strong for 1st level spells and direct damage spells don't scale well as you move into higher levels). However, just throwing your hands up and saying "RAW spell balance isn't perfect, so trying to fit in player designed spells is too hard" isn't very helpful.

If I'm misinterpreting what you were trying to say, I'm sorry, but some constructive criticism would go a lot farther.

RAW spell balance isn't perfect (or even close) so if you want to make balanced spells you should come up with a metric completely independent of published spells, and indeed throwing most published spells out in favor of a new systematically balanced list.

For damage I'd create a maximally boring CRB index archer and declare that a comparably optimized ray caster should do the same dpr at the same range, then value things like area effect or shorter or longer spell ranges from there.

For debuffs I'd figure shaken can be inflicted against a single target with a skill check and is -2 to a bunch of things and work from there. Inflicting the shaken condition for one round must be a cantrip because anyone can attempt it for a standard action at no resource expense. Debuffs can also be compared to combat maneuvers.

Buffs should be slightly weaker than debuffs because they don't get resisted.

Utility spells are the hard part, but for utility spells the level doesn't really matter unless they effect skill checks. Raise Dead could be a cantrip or not even available as a ninth level spell and the game would work either way. They wouldn't be the same game, but they'd both work. In Parcheesi lost pieces go back to the start. In Chess they go away never to return unless you count promoting pawns. In Go you have an effectively unlimited pool of interchangeable pieces. None of these games is wrong and neither is any level really wrong for Raise Dead.

Skill boosters can be related to mundane skill boosts. I'd go through the magic item pricing guidelines by comparison to magic weapon and greater magic weapon, which can be compared to the sickened condition (-2 attack and damage) which can have its value determined by comparison to shaken.

There may be a few hard cases, particularly among buffs and debuffs, but comparing them to systematically balanced buffs will produce results one step away from the system while comparing them to published spells puts them one step away from the publisher's gut feeling about what is or is not balanced.

If a spell turns out too weak or too powerful in testing you don't just adjust the problem spell ad hoc you change the parameters of the system until it falls in the right place, moving any other spells you've created or houseruled.


Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Finally, not to beat a dead horse, my major decision to place it at third was the lack of an AoE component to the spell. Agreed, 2nd level is too low for what i designed, 3rd absolutely, 4th level would be the spell i posted plus the ability to cast it on an undead minion <obviously the strongest> to give him a heal over time effect as an example. Then it becomes a DoT or a HoT which is a multi-purpose spell and thus rates a higher level to help balance it out.

I haven't actually seen this mentioned yet:

By definition, negative energy heals undead. It's one of the traits of the Undead type. It's not a question of whether or not a spell can do that; if it deals negative energy damage, that damage functions as healing against an undead creature.

Not going to make an argument about balance, because I'm not exactly an authority on the subject, but if you're saying that Slice of Death's ability to heal undead or not would be a factor in its proposed spell level: It heals undead unless you specifically state it can only target living creatures, because healing undead is one of the things negative energy does.

Sovereign Court

Well, there's precedent for wizard spells not following the positive/negative energy principles. Disrupt Undead damages undead with positive energy, but can't be used to heal.

---

If you look at the amount of discussion and disagreement involved in assigning a level to this spell, it's easy to see why some GMs aren't looking forward to player-designed stuff.

Creativity is nice, but maybe the GM feels that the main theme of the game is something else? Maybe he doesn't want to focus on the arcane design part of wizarding, but rather on adventurers in action?

As a GM, you have only so much time to spend on the game, and only so much mental energy. There's also quite a lot of existing material; characters aren't starved for choices. So I can understand it if a GM doesn't want to get started on homebrew spells, preferring to run with the game as written.

(Personally, I'd see what the player has in mind, but then I'm a wizard afficionado.)

---

Anyway, should newly developed spells be higher level, a "creativity tax"? There are arguments to be made for it;

* A RAW spell represents potentially centuries of fine-tuning; any newly designed spell won't be quite as power-efficient. Maybe in a few centuries it'll drop a level?

* It's a way to ensure balance. If new spells are always higher level, the player can still add new ways of doing things, but they won't outshine the ordinary ways. So a wizard with an Iceball at level 4 won't shift the balance, because it's definitely weaker than an ordinary Fireball.

* It encourages players to only introduce new spells if they're really needed; to deal with some campaign-specific problem for example. But it makes it unattractive to start fiddling just because the player is itchy to create stuff. (Player creativity is good; unlimited player creativity isn't always good.)


Ascalaphus wrote:


Anyway, should newly developed spells be higher level, a "creativity tax"? There are arguments to be made for it;

* A RAW spell represents potentially centuries of fine-tuning; any newly designed spell won't be quite as power-efficient. Maybe in a few centuries it'll drop a level?

* It's a way to ensure balance. If new spells are always higher level, the player can still add new ways of doing things, but they won't outshine the ordinary ways. So a wizard with an Iceball at level 4 won't shift the balance, because it's definitely weaker than an ordinary Fireball.

* It encourages players to only introduce new spells if they're really needed; to deal with some campaign-specific problem for example. But it makes it unattractive to start fiddling just because the player is itchy to create stuff. (Player creativity is good; unlimited player creativity isn't always good.)

It makes 9th level spells impossible; at some point, all spells were "new" spells. Using "it's new, so it's higher-level" means no 9th level spell would ever have been researched/created.

As for your second point, why shouldn't a creative, new spell outshine "the ordinary ways?" Once more, we have an argument favoring the punishment of creativity.

The limitation of player creativity is inherent in GM approval for spell research already. There is no good reason to push a spell above the level in which it would naturally (as determined by the GM) fall. If a proposed spell's proposed level is insufficient, of course the GM should raise it until the level is commensurate with its power.

But making it higher-level "just because?" Once more, this is a shoddy, lazy metric that shouldn't be encouraged.

If a GM doesn't want to deal with spell research, that's his/her decision. But they ought to be honest about that, and rule that way, rather than add discouragements to research.

Silver Crusade

FinalParagon wrote:
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Finally, not to beat a dead horse, my major decision to place it at third was the lack of an AoE component to the spell. Agreed, 2nd level is too low for what i designed, 3rd absolutely, 4th level would be the spell i posted plus the ability to cast it on an undead minion <obviously the strongest> to give him a heal over time effect as an example. Then it becomes a DoT or a HoT which is a multi-purpose spell and thus rates a higher level to help balance it out.

I haven't actually seen this mentioned yet:

By definition, negative energy heals undead. It's one of the traits of the Undead type. It's not a question of whether or not a spell can do that; if it deals negative energy damage, that damage functions as healing against an undead creature.

Not going to make an argument about balance, because I'm not exactly an authority on the subject, but if you're saying that Slice of Death's ability to heal undead or not would be a factor in its proposed spell level: It heals undead unless you specifically state it can only target living creatures, because healing undead is one of the things negative energy does.

That's a change i'll make on paper then to minimize uncertainty. Target: One living creature

At some point if i write up a version that can heal an undead over time, it will get a level increase, as i mentioned earlier, i could see that as fourth for a HoT in addition to its regular effect.

Silver Crusade

Ascalaphus wrote:

Well, there's precedent for wizard spells not following the positive/negative energy principles. Disrupt Undead damages undead with positive energy, but can't be used to heal.

---

If you look at the amount of discussion and disagreement involved in assigning a level to this spell, it's easy to see why some GMs aren't looking forward to player-designed stuff.

Creativity is nice, but maybe the GM feels that the main theme of the game is something else? Maybe he doesn't want to focus on the arcane design part of wizarding, but rather on adventurers in action?

As a GM, you have only so much time to spend on the game, and only so much mental energy. There's also quite a lot of existing material; characters aren't starved for choices. So I can understand it if a GM doesn't want to get started on homebrew spells, preferring to run with the game as written.

(Personally, I'd see what the player has in mind, but then I'm a wizard afficionado.)

---

Anyway, should newly developed spells be higher level, a "creativity tax"? There are arguments to be made for it;

* A RAW spell represents potentially centuries of fine-tuning; any newly designed spell won't be quite as power-efficient. Maybe in a few centuries it'll drop a level?

* It's a way to ensure balance. If new spells are always higher level, the player can still add new ways of doing things, but they won't outshine the ordinary ways. So a wizard with an Iceball at level 4 won't shift the balance, because it's definitely weaker than an ordinary Fireball.

* It encourages players to only introduce new spells if they're really needed; to deal with some campaign-specific problem for example. But it makes it unattractive to start fiddling just because the player is itchy to create stuff. (Player creativity is good; unlimited player creativity isn't always good.)

Yes, there is precedent due to that spell.

Having said that, my view on magic is that it is a force that can regulated to achieve certain effects and at the same time, shaped so it does not achieve certain effects, if that makes sense. It is a malleable force, with great flexibility.


So... not to sound snarky or anything, but about the original topic...

Considering all the speculation and differing opinions on what level each of these spells rates, and how they should be balanced effectively, and what to compare them to to get an accurate idea of the power, and all that stuff... Is it really surprising that a GM may not want to deal with this in their game?

I mean, Norgrim, it's great that you're looking into feedback on what these spells should be and trying to make sure they're balanced, but if the GM allows it for one person, they ought to allow it for all players.

And would you expect all of your fellow players to put this much thought into their own creations? Not to sound insulting or anything, they certainly may try, but I think this thread kind of illustrates that it's not exactly easy to come up with the right numbers on a spell to make sure it is balanced.

And then, would you expect your GM to look through everything those players come up with to make sure it won't be unbalancing?

Personally, as a GM, I'd be keeping very tight reins on such a thing. I might allow some, on a case-by-case basis, but I would not want to make it a regular thing. I'd find it hard to fault a GM just for saying they'd prefer not to include homebrew stuff, considering how easily it might get out of hand.

But I dunno, maybe that's just my opinion.

Silver Crusade

Darkwolf117 wrote:

So... not to sound snarky or anything, but about the original topic...

Considering all the speculation and differing opinions on what level each of these spells rates, and how they should be balanced effectively, and what to compare them to to get an accurate idea of the power, and all that stuff... Is it really surprising that a GM may not want to deal with this in their game?

I mean, Norgrim, it's great that you're looking into feedback on what these spells should be and trying to make sure they're balanced, but if the GM allows it for one person, they ought to allow it for all players.

And would you expect all of your fellow players to put this much thought into their own creations? Not to sound insulting or anything, they certainly may try, but I think this thread kind of illustrates that it's not exactly easy to come up with the right numbers on a spell to make sure it is balanced.

And then, would you expect your GM to look through everything those players come up with to make sure it won't be unbalancing?

Personally, as a GM, I'd be keeping very tight reins on such a thing. I might allow some, on a case-by-case basis, but I would not want to make it a regular thing. I'd find it hard to fault a GM just for saying they'd prefer not to include homebrew stuff, considering how easily it might get out of hand.

But I dunno, maybe that's just my opinion.

No, your post was not snarky at all my friend.

Several folks have touched on the subject of "for one, then for all".
As the group composition went, we had a Druid who was very new to the PF/D&D type of system. She is coming into her comfort zone with PF, but she really had no interest in spell research. She just loves to roleplay regardless of the system, bless her heart :)

It was really just me as a player that wanted to look into adding something to the world and i agree with the posters as far as the reasons that a GM may choose not want to deal with anything beyond what has already been playtested. All i ask is as a courtesy, just be honest with me even if it's a matter of not wanting to deal with the extra load.


Yeah, I understand the group may vary, and I wouldn't really expect everyone to want to make their own stuff. But with the possibility being there, I can understand a GM being hesitant and deciding they would rather just not include it in the first place.

Though I agree, if that's their reasoning for it, they should probably just be upfront about it from the start.

Anyway, for some constructive thoughts now, if you're still interested in creating a couple of your own spells, you may want to ask your GM directly why they don't want to allow it. If they're worried about it unbalancing the game, or creating too much extra work for them to review, you can bring up the fact that you have looked into making sure they are balanced, and have gotten feedback about it. You can do most of the legwork on making sure they're alright, and bring up the key points of why their power level makes sense, and so on.

In addition, you can let your GM know they have full rights to disallow them later if they don't think it's working out for whatever reason. This way, they don't need to worry that if they allow it now, it's a done deal and they can't take that back. That might help set their mind at ease.

At any rate, I don't really have a whole lot else to offer on the situation, aside from see what your GM says. Unless you're just in this for thoughts on the spells now :P

Edit: Weird wording.

Silver Crusade

Darkwolf117 wrote:

Yeah, I understand the group may vary, and I wouldn't really expect everyone to want to make their own stuff. But with the possibility being there, I can understand a GM being hesitant and deciding they would rather just not include it in the first place.

Though I agree, if that's their reasoning for it, they should probably just be upfront about it from the start.

Anyway, for some constructive thoughts now, if you're still interested in creating a couple of your own spells, you may want to ask your GM directly why they don't want to allow it. If they're worried about it unbalancing the game, or creating too much extra work for them to review, you can bring up the fact that you have looked into making sure they are balanced, and have gotten feedback about it. You can do most of the legwork on making sure they're alright, and bring up the key points of why their power level makes sense, and so on.

In addition, you can let your GM know they have full rights to disallow them later if they don't think it's working out for whatever reason. This way, they don't need to worry that if they allow it now, it's a done deal and they can't take that back. That might help set their mind at ease.

At any rate, I don't really have a whole lot else to offer on the situation, aside from see what your GM says. Unless you're just in this for thoughts on the spells now :P

Edit: Weird wording.

At this point, it's no longer a concern. Lol, i have failed on several Diplomacy checks over the years to persuade the GM to at least test one out. That's fine, hey, it's his game and if he's adamant about no new homebrew spells and such, not much i can do except move on.

I would like to post some spell ideas from time to time to get some feedback, but that will be a different thread. This thread should not reflect a bunch of spell ideas, lol, although i may be a tad bit late on that ;)


*facepalm* Norgrim... really.

We've been having this discussion for 2 years now. I did, at one point, say I would allow you to create spells. While I was on my finals, with 2 young children, and a hand full of other work I had to do, you handed me a folder full of... what... 17 or so spells to check over?

Then we started another game and you asked about spell creation in that.. I told you I would when I was able to get to it...

I'm now at a job with 10 hour days, 3 children... none over 4, an invalid father who has just moved back in, causing a massive amount of house work to be done, and I'm studying for my CCNA certificate, which is not a very light study load in and of itself.... All of these things have been mentioned to you as reasoning, many times before...

There is also the fact that I'm running this from a module, that it takes me the month to get free time to be able to read it... and I'm running a module because I DON'T HAVE ANY FREE TIME!

There is also the fact that you have no ability, that I've seen, to say, "Oh, he's the GM, I'll defer." You keep pushing and pushing, like this thread. We have had this conversation many times, I've said that I'll try to get to a point in my life that I can take your spell creation. You've even said that you thought the portfolio of spells was in bad taste due to my time constraints... so I know you know we've talked about this. Even suggesting that I've not given you any reasons is... well.. slightly insulting, to be honest.

The conversation over text that caused this thread was in general, late at night, I've got to be awake at 4am, and we were finishing up the conversation at 10:30 or so the night before... as a reaction to your statement that the spell creation portion of the rules was an important part of D&D in general, I stated that it (to me) was more of a tacked on system that's not gotten major development focus because obviously "that squeaky wheel hasn't gotten any grease" rather than an integral portion of the game to date, including a comment that it hadn't even been included on the current edition, much less anything I've seen out the play testing on the 5th edition material. Though I was not so verbose about the latter.

I've never said I'd not allow it... I just read over the conversation via text... I don't see it there.

I've also stated multiple times that, though I'm uncomfortable with it, I realize that it's something you highly value, and due to that, I would attempt to go outside of my comfort zone, if you'd just wait to push it until I had some more time to deal with even running a proper game (rather than a hastily thrown together once a month).

Also note, that I'm currently running a PBP using GURPS. When we started this game I told you not only that I couldn't handle your requirements for creating spells, because I'm just not ready for that at this point... you consented, after much pushing, and only after I mentioned that you had asked me to be more direct and forceful with you. At this point you really aren't making me want to try.

Look man, I've got a family. I'm one of those sick bastards who actually enjoy spending time with them. I've got a future in the job that I'm working, and I'm actually trying to progress in it. I don't have time for gaming, but I love it so much I ask my friends to take what time I do have, and can make available to sit together at a table and play... When I got this together, I told you these things. I told you that we would deal with the spell creation later. Your character isn't even 3rd level, and you said you probably wouldn't even be working on spells until 6th...

The conversation we had in text started with wish. which you called during Dinner, and understood that I had time for a call two days later... the next day you text me (one day shy of any time I had free) and started the discussion.

Just because I personally think that the spell creation system is severely lacking (I mainly play point based systems, GURPS, Hero, Savage worlds, D6 system, FUDGE, etc), and I'd like to see more on it, I love the section that The Ultimate Magic has on it... I haven't had time to go over that in any sort of detail... I've never said you couldn't create spells, I'd just rather not deal with that portion of the system, especially right now.

I don't remember if it was Norgrim's little death, but one of yours old spells that you handed me (and then went on about how much you agreed with it, and if I even sounded like desenting with your appraisal of your spells you'd just get a little louder and push a little more, and yes we talked about this because I remember you admitting that when you create something you tend to feel like you looked at all the angles, and feel justified in the numbers you bring me... but I need to be able to say, yes to this, no to that, and maybe to this other...) I can't work like that. I'm sorry. I will take conversation, but when you push... I become disinclined to continue to work with you on things, because we just get into an argument, and I think we both don't really want that.

My understanding of the end of that conversation was that you no longer wish us to ask you to play D&D based games with us... I replied that I was disappointed, but fair being that we can't seem to get over this, and it seems to continue.

Man, I don't know what I've done to piss in your post toasties... but wow dude.

Silver Crusade

Winterwolf wrote:

*facepalm* Norgrim... really.

We've been having this discussion for 2 years now. I did, at one point, say I would allow you to create spells. While I was on my finals, with 2 young children, and a hand full of other work I had to do, you handed me a folder full of... what... 17 or so spells to check over?

Then we started another game and you asked about spell creation in that.. I told you I would when I was able to get to it...

I'm now at a job with 10 hour days, 3 children... none over 4, an invalid father who has just moved back in, causing a massive amount of house work to be done, and I'm studying for my CCNA certificate, which is not a very light study load in and of itself.... All of these things have been mentioned to you as reasoning, many times before...

There is also the fact that I'm running this from a module, that it takes me the month to get free time to be able to read it... and I'm running a module because I DON'T HAVE ANY FREE TIME!

There is also the fact that you have no ability, that I've seen, to say, "Oh, he's the GM, I'll defer." You keep pushing and pushing, like this thread. We have had this conversation many times, I've said that I'll try to get to a point in my life that I can take your spell creation. You've even said that you thought the portfolio of spells was in bad taste due to my time constraints... so I know you know we've talked about this. Even suggesting that I've not given you any reasons is... well.. slightly insulting, to be honest.

The conversation over text that caused this thread was in general, late at night, I've got to be awake at 4am, and we were finishing up the conversation at 10:30 or so the night before... as a reaction to your statement that the spell creation portion of the rules was an important part of D&D in general, I stated that it (to me) was more of a tacked on system that's not gotten major development focus because obviously "that squeaky wheel hasn't gotten any grease" rather than an integral portion of the game to date,...

I'm sorry that you feel that i wasn't taking anything that was going on in your life into consideration. That was not the intention.

The chief reason i wanted to hand you several concepts was not an effort to get you to adjudicate right then and there....the day of a session? No, the intent was to let you hold onto them and look them over because i understand it is not a quick process. My logic was the earlier i can give you an idea to look over for on down the road, the less of a hassle it should be, not an attempt to create a greater hassle.

No sane individual should expect someone with several kids, a full time job and a father that requires extra supervision to simply drop everything at the drop of a hat for something as fictional as a game and even more so for a mechanic in the game. The fact that you seem to have the impression that i'm that short sighted is unfortunate and i'll agree that i have inquired several times over the span of 2-3 years as to whether we can at least start taking steps in that direction. No disrespect intended, but you make it sound like i am asking every other week and that is simply not the case.

For my original post, i admit i posted out of frustration as opposed to objectively posting and i have made that known a little further into the thread. The mention of a GM either being lazy or unsure of his/her own ability to adjudicate was my mistake and for that, i apologize. Again, posting with frustration is not the smart way to start a thread or conversation for that matter.

Several others had contributed possibilities as to why a GM may not be forthcoming when it comes to new material coming into the game and it made sense.

As far as whether or not you would look at a new concept, you gave me the impression that no homebrew was going to be allowed and will not be considered for review. That was the source of the frustration, not because you had a family or life. Sometimes i do become headstrong on certain topics and if that has made YOUR gaming experience a problem, all i can do is apologize.


I'll call you back, when I'm off work.

We'll hammer this out, no biggie.

I accept your apology, and I apologize for coming off so hard headed on my part as well.

You are one of my best friends, an airborne compatriot, a fellow infantry man, and someone with whom I've served. This is a game. Nothing for comparison in my mind.

If you still wish to play at the table with us, then we will continue to hammer this out, if not, then there is no continued need to go down this path, but we'd like you to continue to game with us, no matter the game.

And especially I don't wish to hammer this out online, when we live... like... 10 minutes from each other... okay.. maybe 15 depending on traffic.

-woof

Sovereign Court

A suggestion?

Norgrim, pick only ONE spell for now to talk about; it's just unrealistic (given how busy your GM is) that you'll get to develop more than 1-2 spells in the game, so pick only the one you really really want.

Silver Crusade

Winterwolf wrote:

I'll call you back, when I'm off work.

We'll hammer this out, no biggie.

I accept your apology, and I apologize for coming off so hard headed on my part as well.

You are one of my best friends, an airborne compatriot, a fellow infantry man, and someone with whom I've served. This is a game. Nothing for comparison in my mind.

If you still wish to play at the table with us, then we will continue to hammer this out, if not, then there is no continued need to go down this path, but we'd like you to continue to game with us, no matter the game.

And especially I don't wish to hammer this out online, when we live... like... 10 minutes from each other... okay.. maybe 15 depending on traffic.

-woof

If this ended up turning into a misunderstanding apacolypse, lol, we need to just start choking ourselves.

15 minutes? If i was a crow sure ;)

For those of you guys that have been posting, i think to err is human would explain a massive misunderstanding the two of us apparently had and i would like to formally apologize to all. Have a great holiday season and don't let two old former paratroopers give you the impression that we act like a married couple with communication issues ;)

Silver Crusade

Ascalaphus wrote:

A suggestion?

Norgrim, pick only ONE spell for now to talk about; it's just unrealistic (given how busy your GM is) that you'll get to develop more than 1-2 spells in the game, so pick only the one you really really want.

I know, the intent was to give him a great deal of time to look them over before the research would be an issue.

Lol, apparently, we had a communication issue, my impression versus his intent ended up taking a few turns through a shredder it looks like ;)

We survived the life of Paratroopers, lol, we can survive a misunderstanding.

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / New spell and magic item concepts: Am i truly in a minority? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.