| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Create Demiplane, Greater.
...because it oozes with flavor.
INDEED! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
INDEED! :DCreate Demiplane, Greater.
...because it oozes with flavor.
I like prestidigitation because it flavors oozes.
;-)
I'm a fan of Planar Binding Because I like magic circles.
Close seconds is arcane mark and acid splash.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane: delayed blast fireball
Villain: Now its time for the most dangerous game.
Hero: We're hunting humans?!
Villain: Dude, we live in a world with eight-legged gold-eating honey badgers of death. Humans don't even make the top 50 deadliest things. And of course its not "hunting," what is this? A 1924 Short Story?
Hero: Then what are we doing?
Villain: Playing ping-pong!
The first spell I used, fighting an elf in D&D Basic in 1979/80, the spell I have used more than any other, and the spell I always and immediately associate with this game: magic missile.
Melf's Acid Arrow
3.5e Harm
As people have said, Fireball is a classic spell, and I've enjoyed using it with several PCs. A spell I like the idea of and have always hoped to cast is Magnificent Mansion, but the one time I played a Sorcerer able to cast 7th level spells the DM banned Magnificent Mansion and Rope Trick with the comment, "You're not hiding from my monsters!"
Still, the idea of designing a custom extraplanar mansion seems pretty cool. I guess Create Demiplane could be fun in a similar way. Maybe I'll play a Wizard next campaign - probably not though...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the DM banned Magnificent Mansion and Rope Trick with the comment, "You're not hiding from my monsters!"
Please tell me you never spoke to that person again.
Sending - because sometimes getting a message to someone on basically any plane right now is important.
Heal - fixes so much stuff in one little bundle
Antimagic aura - ruins so many plans in one little bundle(honorable mention: endure elements, prestidigitation: because for someone actually living in the world,personal 24 hour air conditioner and unlimited soap and food seasoning would be just about the best thing ever)
Life bubble, fairy ring retreat. May have taken all my 5th lvl spells but dang those 2 let us finish the last book of Rise of the Runelords.
Burning Invective: Cuss out a group of people so bad they all catch on fire.
Ah yes. Somehow I forgot about Sick Burn the spell.
|
My favorite spell of all time is easily SHATTER!
Locked door, SHATTER!
Enemy has a cool weapon, SHATTER!
Trapped on the second floor of an Inn? SHATTER the floor and jump down the hole. Or SHATTER the wall and leave!
Cornered in said in by an Enemy? Shatter the floor beneath your enemy and have THEM fall down the hole! Oh, you are on the first floor? Shatter the ceiling and hit them in the head with rubble.
Game Master if overly found of trap puzzles and you aren't? Use Shatter to 'solve' and disable these 'puzzles'.
Make a 2nd level wand of Shatter with 50 charges. Call it a "Sonic Screw Driver". Then watch your Game Master bang his head against a wall as you proceed to use your Sonic Screw Driver to solve all of your problems.
Shatter is so damn cool.
My favorite spell of all time is easily SHATTER!
Locked door, SHATTER!
Enemy has a cool weapon, SHATTER!
Trapped on the second floor of an Inn? SHATTER the floor and jump down the hole. Or SHATTER the wall and leave!
Cornered in said in by an Enemy? Shatter the floor beneath your enemy and have THEM fall down the hole! Oh, you are on the first floor? Shatter the ceiling and hit them in the head with rubble.
Game Master if overly found of trap puzzles and you aren't? Use Shatter to 'solve' and disable these 'puzzles'.
Make a 2nd level wand of Shatter with 50 charges. Call it a "Sonic Screw Driver". Then watch your Game Master bang his head against a wall as you proceed to use your Sonic Screw Driver to solve all of your problems.
Shatter doesn't do any of that. Not a single one of these examples actually works.
The spell affects a single non-magical object that weighs up to 10 pounds per caster level.
Locked door? Even a strong wooden door (2" thick) weighs 250 lbs. if oaken and 8' x 4' in size. You'd have to have a caster level of 25 to shatter it. Iron or stone? Much, much heavier. (And if the door is enchanted or affected by a spell, then you just can't shatter it ever, no matter how high your caster level.)
Enemy has a cool weapon? If it's magical (and how "cool" could it possibly be if it's non-magical), then Shatter can't affect it, period.
Trapped on the second floor of an inn? Cornered by an enemy? Too bad: neither the wall nor the floor weigh less than 10 pounds per caster level. Shatter is absolutely powerless against walls and floors.
Trap puzzles? Do they weigh less than 10 pounds per caster level, and are they also non-magical? If either of these conditions don't hold (which is quite likely), too bad; Shatter will do you no good whatsoever.
By all means, make your "Sonic Screw Driver"; your GM will have the last laugh as you slowly realize that you've wasted a bunch of money and crafting time on a useless item.
If only the game supported those weights, Makhno. That's going to vary from table to table and even door to door. Also, very few manufacturing techniques combine pieces in such a way as to destroy a piece's individual cohesion. Just like you could use a crowbar to pry up a single board or knock out a single brick, there should be no reason you can't target such things with shatter.
If only the game supported those weights, Makhno. That's going to vary from table to table and even door to door. Also, very few manufacturing techniques combine pieces in such a way as to destroy a piece's individual cohesion. Just like you could use a crowbar to pry up a single board or knock out a single brick, there should be no reason you can't target such things with shatter.
The thickness of doors is given by the rules.
The composition and size is not, you're right. The only thing a GM has to go on is real-world doors. If the GM chooses to have his wooden doors be quite different from the way doors are in real life, well, that's his call. But at this point, you're relying, in order for your spell to function, on your GM choosing to make a specific ruling that a) is not grounded in rules text, b) deviates from reality, c) is in your favor.
By that measure, you can say that almost any spell can do almost anything; after all, the GM is free to make all sorts of rulings.
And that's just for wooden doors! What GM is going to rule that a 2" thick iron door, or a 4" thick stone door, weighs less than 150 or 100 pounds (or even less than 30 lbs. — the maximum weight affected by a Shatter spell cast from a wand)?! That's obviously wrong.
As for walls and floors: the idea that a "solid object" can mean "just one brick of a solidly mortared wall" or "just one floorboard of the floor" is quite the stretch. Walls and floors are generally dealt with in "10 x 10 foot sections" (see here, for example).
There's more: what if the bricks are covered with plaster? How do you propose to target each one? If carpeting covers the floor, how do you target a floorboard?
And, heck, say you can target a single floorboard or a single brick. Alright, you've destroyed a floorboard or a brick. That... doesn't actually destroy nearly enough of a wall or floor to break through it, cause it to collapse, etc. I mean — a single brick?! Come on. (Making a ceiling collapse in this manner is, if anything, even more absurd.)
The result of how you use the spell and what you do about are ENTIRELY up to the situation at hand. Saying no because you don't see the point is quite laughably irrelevant. Plus, depending on the structure, a single load-bearing beam could easily cause a chain reaction. Have you not played any of the dozens of physics games out there about this?
The result of how you use the spell and what you do about are ENTIRELY up to the situation at hand.
Yeah, yeah. This is the sort of general platitude people retreat to, when they don't have anything to say about specifics.
I've made very concrete, very specific points.
Saying no because you don't see the point is quite laughably irrelevant.
I have no idea what you're even talking about here. Saying no to what? Don't see the point of what?
Plus, depending on the structure, a single load-bearing beam could easily cause a chain reaction. Have you not played any of the dozens of physics games out there about this?
I don't think I have, no. They sound interesting. Got some names / links?
That said: at this point, we've gone from:
"Shatter can smash through walls, smash holes in floors, cause ceilings to collapse, destroy doors, destroy cool enemy weapons, smash traps, etc."
to:
"it's possible, in certain situations, depending on the structure you're in, and where you are in that structure, that you could shatter a key load-bearing beam (which you must first identify as being load-bearing — how many ranks in Knowledge (engineering) do you have?) and cause a ceiling collapse, if that beam weighs less than 10 lbs. per caster level (better hope you're pretty high level, and certainly not casting the spell from a wand — after all, even a 1-foot-thick, 8-foot-long pine beam will weigh ~260 lbs., and an oaken one of the same size will weigh a whopping ~360 lbs.!), and if the DM decides that this results in a chain reaction that collapses the ceiling, and also that the collapse of the ceiling harms your enemies but not you ..."
And, you know what? Sure! If you happen to find yourself in that fairly rare situation where a confluence of factors aligns in your favor, and you have the presence of mind to use a Shatter spell (and have one available) — great! I congratulate you on finding a clever use for a niche spell.
But that's not what Aelreth wrote, is it? He listed a set of broad cases, much too broad for Shatter to apply in even most, much less all of them (and some of the things he listed are just flat wrong — like the bit about an enemy's weapon).
Shatter is a niche spell with specific applications. It does the things it says it does. If you can find a clever use for it, within those restrictions — great. Good on you. But using it in the broad ways that Aelreth describes is clearly and blatantly against the rules.
Don't be dense. The spell was brought up with a list of uses, all of which you discounted out of hand with almost no critical thought, and you basically tried to shame Aelreth by saying that his GM would have the last laugh when he essentially looks dumb. You essentially said "lol, no." Idc if you didn't actually say the word, you tried to put down his usage for the spell and now you capitulate by saying "well, yeah, if you 'happen' to be in that situation..." No, you're wrong. Go troll elsewhere.
As for the games, here you go: link.
Don't be dense. The spell was brought up with a list of uses, all of which you discounted out of hand with almost no critical thought, and you basically tried to shame Aelreth by saying that his GM would have the last laugh when he essentially looks dumb. You essentially said "lol, no." Idc if you didn't actually say the word, you tried to put down his usage for the spell and now you capitulate by saying "well, yeah, if you 'happen' to be in that situation..." No, you're wrong. Go troll elsewhere.
As for the games, here you go: link.
So, very specific comments, with citations of the rules, about individual cases, and detailed analysis — this, to you, is "no critical thought"? And the fact that you have no responses to any of my concrete points, but are commenting only in generalities — this is "critical thought", to you?
Ok then.
Aelreth's list was wrong, top to bottom. I explained why; you haven't refuted my points at all (nor have you acknowledged them, even the ones which you didn't bother to deny — rather a rude way to argue, by the way!). The situation you described, with the load-bearing beam, wasn't on his list — and indeed it's quite a rare and niche one. (And it, too, is unlikely to work — note the comments about weight!)
Thanks for the search keywords, though; I'll check out some of these.
It fails to be critical thought when you didn't even consider the case of targeting individual pieces of the structure rather than the whole floor or wall, as if a floor or wall is just a single thing and not made of anything else. It's disingenuous. It appears to be thought out but is actually lazy.
If one of your players chose this spell and, thus, devoted resources to pull off a specific effect, and you just rolled your eyes and said no, you would not be doing your due diligence to enable that player to have fun and participate in the game. If that's how you'd run it, you should include it as a house rule or have some general rule which touches on the limitations of the "actual" physics you use to mesh mundane and magic in your game. At any rate, the player should have some kind of indication before hand that their goal clearly should not work. That a concept of load bearing parts of a building even exists and are super commonly understood to be part of any structure, just washing away the entire effort without actually considering how it could be done is not being a good GM and simply shows how little thought you've put into the situation.
It fails to be critical thought when you didn't even consider the case of targeting individual pieces of the structure rather than the whole floor or wall, as if a floor or wall is just a single thing and not made of anything else. It's disingenuous. It appears to be thought out but is actually lazy.
I explained why targeting individual pieces of the structure wouldn't work (and would in many cases actually be impossible). Did you read my analysis of why this wouldn't work? If so, do you disagree with it? In what way is it mistaken? Please be specific.
If that's how you'd run it, you should include it as a house rule or have some general rule which touches on the limitations of the "actual" physics you use to mesh mundane and magic in your game.
Except it's not a "house rule". A house rule is when you modify, override, or ignore the existing rules in some way. Please point out which existing rule you think I am modifying, overriding, or ignoring.
Edit: I agree that it's a very good to have a conversation with players to calibrate everyone's expectations appropriately. When I run campaigns, I generally make it clear that as far as I'm concerned, anything the rules don't explicitly call out, can be assumed to work exactly like it does in real life: people have to visit the outhouse (even though there's no pooping in the rules), gravity, magnetism, and other physical forces work exactly like they do IRL (unless some magic is afoot to change that), mundane plants and animals and materials like wood or iron act like they do in reality (except where specified), etc.
At any rate, the player should have some kind of indication before hand that their goal clearly should not work.
Of course. The conversation would go like this:
Player: I cast Shatter on the wall, to make a big hole in it so I can escape!
DM: Um, just so you know, that doesn't actually work. The spell doesn't work that way. (Insert all the explanations I gave in my previous posts, if necessary.) Your character would know that, of course, since he's a wizard and all.
Player: Oh, darn. Hm, ok. In that case, here's what I do instead...
That a concept of load bearing parts of a building even exists and are super commonly understood to be part of any structure, just washing away the entire effort without actually considering how it could be done is not being a good GM and simply shows how little thought you've put into the situation.
Once again, please read my analysis of why "Shatter the load bearing beam" is likely to fail (it's the weight). If you think what I said was mistaken, explain why. That said: the "load bearing part of a building" could apply in some situations. It won't apply to:
1. Break through the wall to escape.
2. Collapse the floor under your enemy (or under yourself, to escape).
It could apply in some small subset of "collapse the ceiling" or "collapse this entire structure" (even less likely). (But, again, probably won't work — as I explained.)
If one of your players chose this spell and, thus, devoted resources to pull off a specific effect, and you just rolled your eyes and said no, you would not be doing your due diligence to enable that player to have fun and participate in the game. ...
This part of your post touches on a broader point, which is why I saved it for last.
No. No, if one of my players chose this spell, didn't read it or didn't understand how it works, and then tried to use it in a situation without thinking about whether it actually makes sense for the spell to apply to that situation — and if I, then, allowed the spell to work — that would mean that I would not be doing my due diligence.
I can't stand playing in games where a GM would let Shatter work as broadly as Aelreth described — never mind that the rules, the actual spell text, forbids it, never minds that it makes no sense if you think about it for more than two seconds — just because it "enables the player to have fun and participate". My interest in playing drops away immediately, because if a GM allows this sort of thing, what that tells me is that either the GM doesn't know the rules (and doesn't care enough to know the rules) — or, even worse, that he just doesn't care, and will let any old thing fly as long as it "enables a player to have fun".
That sort of thing renders choice meaningless. It renders system mastery meaningless. It means that it doesn't matter if I put any effort into picking spells, or thinking of clever ways to use my character's abilities to solve problems — in other words, if I actually exercise creativity within the constraints provided by the rules — because another player, who didn't make any effort, can just say "hey I can use Shatter to Kool-Aid-Man my way through the wall, right?" and the GM will go "why not, lol", because it's "fun" and he's incapable of saying "no". At that point, rules mean nothing, constraints mean nothing, and so creativity and cleverness also mean nothing.
No thanks.
My job as a GM is to know the rules, understand the restrictions, and to be firm, predictable, and consistent in enforcing them; to provide a consistent, coherent world for the players to act within. My job as a player is to know the rules, understand the restrictions, and come up with clever and creative ways to solve the challenges the GM places before me, while operating within those rules and restrictions. That is what I call doing due diligence.
[/UNHIJACK]
Confusion, hands down. Nothing better than watching all your enemies devolve into a chaotic brawl.
I'm a fan of Storm of Blades personally...I like the imagery of just summoning a bunch of really big swords and then firing them like missiles
Conditional Curse. It's exactly like Major Curse but one level lower and close range instead of touch. The condition you have to set for removal is all upside, no downside, because you can either set it for a useful blackmail condition, pick something so humiliating that it constitutes psychological torture in addition to the curse effects, or just ignore it because it's in combat and the target will be long dead before he can worry about lifting it.
Seriously, the range alone makes it amazing, built in Reach Spell and Heighten plus bennies.
Conditional Curse. It's exactly like Major Curse but one level lower and close range instead of touch. The condition you have to set for removal is all upside, no downside, because you can either set it for a useful blackmail condition, pick something so humiliating that it constitutes psychological torture in addition to the curse effects, or just ignore it because it's in combat and the target will be long dead before he can worry about lifting it.
Seriously, the range alone makes it amazing, built in Reach Spell and Heighten plus bennies.
Major Curse is already close range. Bestow curse is touch.