Do you allow different edition of D&D spells?

[ChaosTicket]

Looking at older dungeons and dragons materials I see some spells are different from current Pathfinder. Spells like Harm, Slay Living, Implosion, and Disintegrate rather than do some amount of damage have very powerful and scaling effects.

Harm reduced target Hit Point to 1.
Slay Living could kill anything unless they passed a test.
Implosion can crush anyone who fails a save and concentrate to do it each turn for several turns.
Disintegrate could destroy anything that didnt pass a test.

Those are some of the "Save or Die" spells are hear about but they are much more limited in Pathfinder.

Would you allow players to use older and less limited spells? Would you allow NPCs to use them as well?

[taks]

Nope.

[Eviljames]

I probably wouldn't bring any save or die's over but there are few utility and fun spells in Second Ed that I may have to try and port over.
Namely Nemicron's Transference that let you switch the properties of one material with the properties of another. Things like hardness, melting point even edibility (not sure how that last one worked but it doesn't matter, it's never come up) It was a easy way for characters to make cool looking gear like swords made of ice and what not.

Also the Special Effects spell. It's only purpose was to allow wizards the abilty to have various permanent non harmful special effects like glowey eyes or hands, constantly wind blown hair and what not. It was a kind of silly one but it allowed for your characters to make quite an entrance.
There were a few others, but these were the ones that showed up the most when I played 2nd Ed.

[Bill Dunn]

ChaosTicket wrote:

Looking at older dungeons and dragons materials I see some spells are different from current Pathfinder. Spells like Harm, Slay Living, Implosion, and Disintegrate rather than do some amount of damage have very powerful and scaling effects.

Harm reduced target Hit Point to 1.
Slay Living could kill anything unless they passed a test.
Implosion can crush anyone who fails a save and concentrate to do it each turn for several turns.
Disintegrate could destroy anything that didnt pass a test.

Those are some of the "Save or Die" spells are hear about but they are much more limited in Pathfinder.

Would you allow players to use older and less limited spells? Would you allow NPCs to use them as well?

Heck no. D&D 3.0 tried a version of Harm like the AD&D editions and it was way too powerful. Defenses had changed in 3rd edition, making the touch AC of things like dragons absurdly easy to hit whereas in AD&D, the cleric had to hit the full AC - much harder.

The defenses had changed a lot with respect to disintegrate too. In AD&D, by the time you're able to cast disintegrate, a lot of monsters (and PCs) had very good saves. Save or die spells were a much dicier strategy than in 3rd edition/Pathfinder where many saves are weaker and the caster has ways to boost his save DC - something that was nearly impossible in AD&D.

So, no, I don't allow spells from earlier editions. Many needed nerfing to fit in better with the changes in spell casting mechanics.

[Lathiira]

Much as I'd love to see the return of proper save-or-die spells, I realize the game has changed. Ask yourself this: do you want to watch as your cool monsters and bosses all go down to a harm spell? Especially since I've seen it happen to a dragon or two, followed by a simple quickened inflict light wounds to get those last hit points. What's good for the goose is of course good for the gander. It's already a lot of rocket tag at higher levels...and the bad guys can do whatever PCs can do, usually before they can. Would you want to be on the receiving end of it?

Disintegrate is an odd case. I wish it had been split into two spells. One that works like the existing spell: lots of d6s for damage, can leave a dust pile. The other only affects objects and blasts them to dust. Because recovery from disintegration could be obnoxious at times (especially with a quickened gust of wind follow-up).

[ChaosTicket]

Well what spells stay useful from start to finish?

Magic Missile could be pretty useful if you gained another shot every level. Many spells gain +1d6 per level but have a cap in Pathfinder so everything ends up obsolete.

Without some very powerful spells than the entire system of limited spells per day is sort of pointless.

The original point of spells and spellcasters is that they are not practical or even powerful early on but once you do reach the higher levels then you have the ability to One-shot many enemies but even then you have to be careful or else youll be without spells.

NPCs would be more dangerous as they wouldnt need to concern themselves with conserving spells.

[wraithstrike]

I would if the group called for it, but everyone would have to agree to make it into a new rule. I would not allow a PC to have the 3.5 version of an SoD(save or die) spell, and the NPC's use the Pathfinder version.

[Lady-J]

this is a whole lot of nope only spells i would consider bringing in is cantrips from 5E

[Spacelard]

As a player and GM one of the stand out differences between PF and 1st ED was how player friendly things had become. The lack of 'real' SoD, poison which would rarely kill, no 'energy drain', no 'age a year when you're Hasted' etc.

Then I realised Gygax hated PCs. Everything was about the GM trying to suck fun out of the game while trying to make sure everyone had fun. Want to Identify something? Sure, that's a 100gp pearl gone and you get one ability. Want to bring someone back from the dead? Sure scratch off 2 points of CON and 10Kgp.

Nah, leave these things in the past where they belong.

EDIT: That said, when that Ancient Red Dragon had 88hps things were a little easier!

[taks]

Gygax was quirky like thst.

[captain yesterday]

No, I don't allow anything from D&D.

Other 3pp are okay as long as you have the book and it isn't complicated, or psionics, I hate psionics.

[The Sword]

It is ironic that Pathfinder was designed to be backward compatible for people who weren't ready to give up on 3e but in reality isn't and people can't use their 3e materials. While at the same time becoming much worse than 3e in terms of bloat and complexity.

There's irony there.

[Drejk]

Spacelard wrote:

EDIT: That said, when that Ancient Red Dragon had 88hps things were a little easier!

If you were caster or was lucky enough to have a dragon-slaying weapon or an artifact. Otherwise it was painful as your average damage were lower. These days a fighter facing ancient red dragon can deal higher fraction of its total hit points per hit than then. Unless you cheated on your ability scores to get Str 18/00 or the DM was merciful and let you get gauntlets of ogre power or one of the belts of giant strength.

[captain yesterday]

The Sword wrote:

It is ironic that Pathfinder was designed to be backward compatible for people who weren't ready to give up on 3e but in reality isn't and people can't use their 3e materials. While at the same time becoming much worse than 3e in terms of bloat and complexity.

There's irony there.

That's not true at all.

I just hate WoTC so much.

[master_marshmallow]

I still use some 3.5 spells and magic items. My players are fond of spells like Mass Conviction, and I like the weapon and armor enhancements.

Generally speaking, there's a lot of good content that simply hasn't yet or can't be converted due to copyright.

[KestrelZ]

Some yes, some no.

Some spells like death ward and rope trick were needlessly nerfed - in the case of rope trick a paradox appeared. (the rope cannot be hidden, pulled up, or detached. It later says it snaps off if it exceeds a certain weight pulling on it).

Some spells are appropriate, or niche enough that they can't hurt a campaign much.

Some spells are far too unbalancing, or should be considered higher level "greater" variants. Time spells from second edition are quite unbalancing.Being able to change the age categories of dragons, or rewind minutes of time could have very anticlimactic effect on a campaign. Buffing spells, such as cats grace, lasting 10 minutes per level rather than one minute per level aren't game breaking - yet should be considered a higher level than they currently are (perhaps a "greater" variant that is 2 levels higher).

[DungeonmasterCal]

I miss the save or die spells. 3.x/PF nerfed nearly all of them and PCs don't really fear them anymore. Same with poisons. The ridiculously low poison saves really irk me.

[Alzrius]

I once saw a third-party book that reintroduced the 3.0 version of haste as a 9th-level spell. I thought it was quite inspired.

[Doc_Alpha]

I'm new to Pathfinder but I'm long experienced in RPGs and I'll happily use different versions of spells as I've always done. Picking the version I like best.

For those with very long memories, remember how 2nd edition rushed to change Sepia Snake Sigil? Well I ignored that from the very off and still use the 1st edition version.

It's the same for the party as it is for the NPC's.

[wraithstrike]

The Sword wrote:

It is ironic that Pathfinder was designed to be backward compatible for people who weren't ready to give up on 3e but in reality isn't and people can't use their 3e materials. While at the same time becoming much worse than 3e in terms of bloat and complexity.

There's irony there.

This not really true and not really false. It depends on the group, and what is asked to be allowed. Even some things that made it to print should not have been in 3.5, so it makes sense to not allow them in PF either.

[dysartes]

Is there anything stopping you from using the Spell Research rules to build those spells within the PF framework? With different names, obviously, to save confusion...

[wraithstrike]

dysartes wrote:

Is there anything stopping you from using the Spell Research rules to build those spells within the PF framework? With different names, obviously, to save confusion...

No. The research rules don't put a limit on spells. That is up to the GM to decide if what spells would be allowed.

To be clear the actual effects of the spells is what the other posters who were against them were trying to avoid. The name is not that important.

[Quark Blast]

Initially I was really disappointed researching spells for my first 3.PF character. A couple of the local Grogs mansplained it to me much like what taks said (Gygax was quirky like this), that it's a holdover from the way they did class balance in AD&D combined with a Vancian view of arcane spell-casters.

If I was designing from scratch I'd go for either spells that explicitly scaled by caster level and/or using a point system where one could buff spells now at the cost of fewer and/or reduced efficiency spells later in the day.

For my campaign, when I ran one (5E btw), I kept the spells by the book exactly but if a player (one player in particular) wanted to change things up - to de-quirkify the leftover Gygaxness - we worked out compromises based on metamagic items. What that amounted to was a lazy way of getting scaling by caster level without being all systematic and comprehensive in the rewriting of the rules and such.

So technically my answer to the OP is, "No", but that wasn't used as an excuse to make the game un-fun.

[Klorox]

captain yesterday wrote:

No, I don't allow anything from D&D.

Other 3pp are okay as long as you have the book and it isn't complicated, or psionics, I hate psionics.

never undestood why people hate them, in a way psionics are way more balanced than normal magic, and the mechanics are simpler than those of recent official classes...

[Quark Blast]

Klorox wrote:

captain yesterday wrote:

No, I don't allow anything from D&D.

Other 3pp are okay as long as you have the book and it isn't complicated, or psionics, I hate psionics.

never undestood why people hate them, in a way psionics are way more balanced than normal magic, and the mechanics are simpler than those of recent official classes...

I neither like nor dislike psionics.

Two campaign worlds that do it well are Dark Sun and Eberron.

I'm more of a Wizard or Sorcerer fan. All the other classes, except maybe Shaman, are just more rules to remember and not some fun that can't be had by fluffing one of those three.

[ChaosTicket]

Im more interested in the motivation for or against using a decision rather than yes or no answers.

Kineticists are more like what people want, just a combat caster using pseudo-magic.

D&D on the other hand can allow some creative options through spells. Save or Die spells are infamous, but the ability to create and sell magic items would also be very useful or how about using Wish to create money or materials?

Im less familiar with the changes to those spells, but would you ban something like WIsh or creation feats?

[Quark Blast]

ChaosTicket wrote:

Im more interested in the motivation for or against using a decision rather than yes or no answers.

Kineticists are more like what people want, just a combat caster using pseudo-magic.

D&D on the other hand can allow some creative options through spells. Save or Die spells are infamous, but the ability to create and sell magic items would also be very useful or how about using Wish to create money or materials?

Im less familiar with the changes to those spells, but would you ban something like WIsh or creation feats?

I'm more interested in a fun game than some theoretical "game balance". ;)

Sure ideas could be totally breaky but 3.PF has sooooo many rules that don't always work well together already that brokenness is kind of a thing we already accept to some degree. Outside of PFS I doubt anyone plays in a game that isn't homebrew. Not even the Devs at Paizo or (back in the day) WotC.

If you want to try new rules/old spells but don't want to either retcon or post-use-ban stuff that turns out not to work so well, then I recommend you introduce those things as 1-shot or limited use magic and see how it goes.

If it goes well, then PCs (or NPCs) can research the new spell (or whatever) and it can be a regular thing in your campaign.

If it goes bad, then the thing was some sort of crazy artifact that no one can recreate for "reasons".

Asking for specific advice for your homebrew is too hard for me to answer since I don't already know your game/game group.

Best of luck with this.

Quark out.

[Lady-J]

ChaosTicket wrote:

Kineticists are more like what people want, just a combat caster using pseudo-magic.

no they really aren't

[DungeonmasterCal]

I sometimes allow 3.5 spells, but on a case by case basis.

[Quark Blast]

In the interests of being more helpful, here's a well thought out answer from the Sage over at WotC.

WotC Sage wrote:

When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.

RAW.
“Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we published.

RAI.
Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but fail with another.

When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.

RAF.
Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to his or her players. Such DMs aim for RAF, “rules as fun.”
We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a particular campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players. Sometimes my rules answers will include advice on achieving the RAF interpretation of a rule for your group.

I recommend a healthy mix of RAW, RAI, and RAF!

[qaplawjw]

I am generally open to converting 3.5 material, if it has not already been rewritten. For something like Harm or Disintegrate, just use the PF version.

[Klorox]

Technically, If I were running a campaign, it would be a merry mix of 3.xx and PF... I don't use the PF occult classes or horror rules, and I don't have Unchained yet so I'm still open on this, but I'd allow 3.5 warlocks and spells from the compendium... and I might use 3.0 versions for certain buff spells, so they have a decent duration rather than having to be cast right wen the combat starts or is about to...

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

ChaosTicket wrote:

Looking at older dungeons and dragons materials I see some spells are different from current Pathfinder. Spells like Harm, Slay Living, Implosion, and Disintegrate rather than do some amount of damage have very powerful and scaling effects.

Harm reduced target Hit Point to 1.
Slay Living could kill anything unless they passed a test.
Implosion can crush anyone who fails a save and concentrate to do it each turn for several turns.
Disintegrate could destroy anything that didnt pass a test.

Those are some of the "Save or Die" spells are hear about but they are much more limited in Pathfinder.

Would you allow players to use older and less limited spells? Would you allow NPCs to use them as well?

Primarily, I use Pathfinder as my main source for spells, now.

However, I do allow my players to play classes from other editions of the game and if such classes used spells, then I am willing to consider allowing those spells.

Obviously, there has to be some adjustments, though. Casting times for AD&D spells would make them unusable in combat, for the most part, in Pathfinder because the casting time is measured in segments, making most every spell at least a full-round action to cast or potentially a multi-round action to cast.

But, in general, I encourage the use of Pathfinder as the primary source and if there's a question about how something works, I look to the Pathfinder version, first.

[Lady-J]

Klorox wrote:

Technically, If I were running a campaign, it would be a merry mix of 3.xx and PF... I don't use the PF occult classes or horror rules, and I don't have Unchained yet so I'm still open on this, but I'd allow 3.5 warlocks and spells from the compendium... and I might use 3.0 versions for certain buff spells, so they have a decent duration rather than having to be cast right wen the combat starts or is about to...

if one of your players is looking at playing a warlock highly recommend using a 3.5-pf conversion of the class as opposed to the 3.5 class

[Klorox]

Got any to recommend? I know of no such published material, as it seems the kineticist is the 'official' warlock replacement, and I find the occult classes clunky to the max... so, any good homebrew or 3pp version?

[Lady-J]

Klorox wrote:

Got any to recommend? I know of no such published material, as it seems the kineticist is the 'official' warlock replacement, and I find the occult classes clunky to the max... so, any good homebrew or 3pp version?

master admerious or however you spell his name has a really good conversion on a google document don't have a link to it tho unfortunately i can try and find it for you tho

[Lady-J]

luckily paizo boards can search previous posts based on words so here it is warlock pathfinderfied

[Klorox]

thank you so much :D

[Vidmaster7]

see I would of used pathfinderized instead of pathfinderfied.

[Volkard Abendroth]

I allow spell research, with lots of DM scrutiny and feedback.

This may, or may not, include spells from earlier versions of D&D, the Great Net Spellbood, 3rd party vendors, or even the players personal creations.

If I don't agree with the spell's power level and we cannot come to an agreement on a revised version of the spell, the answer will be no.

[SheepishEidolon]

I would be very hesitant to allow such extremely lethal spells. On the other hand, Pathfinder still has so many devastating legacy spells, from sleep to wish. With 'save or die' mostly gone, people tend to go for the next best thing: 'save or suck'.

And on the third hand (because eidolon): It's all relative to the means to get PCs or monsters back into play. Insta death is less of an issue if you can bring someone back within a single round.

[Golurkcanfly]

Also based off of the 3.5 Warlock is the Avowed. A Google search should find it pretty easily.

[Eviljames]

ChaosTicket wrote:

Well what spells stay useful from start to finish?

Magic Missile could be pretty useful if you gained another shot every level. Many spells gain +1d6 per level but have a cap in Pathfinder so everything ends up obsolete.

Without some very powerful spells than the entire system of limited spells per day is sort of pointless.

The original point of spells and spellcasters is that they are not practical or even powerful early on but once you do reach the higher levels then you have the ability to One-shot many enemies but even then you have to be careful or else youll be without spells.

NPCs would be more dangerous as they wouldnt need to concern themselves with conserving spells.

PAthfinder didn't cap the d6's on those spells or Magic missile. Those were capped in D&D as well. There was I hight level version of Magic missle that allowed more missles and delayed blast fire ball had a higher cap that fireball. but they all had caps. it just didn't matter as much because everything had fewer hit points until 3rd ed.

[Lady-J]

Eviljames wrote:

ChaosTicket wrote:

Well what spells stay useful from start to finish?

Magic Missile could be pretty useful if you gained another shot every level. Many spells gain +1d6 per level but have a cap in Pathfinder so everything ends up obsolete.

Without some very powerful spells than the entire system of limited spells per day is sort of pointless.

The original point of spells and spellcasters is that they are not practical or even powerful early on but once you do reach the higher levels then you have the ability to One-shot many enemies but even then you have to be careful or else youll be without spells.

NPCs would be more dangerous as they wouldnt need to concern themselves with conserving spells.

PAthfinder didn't cap the d6's on those spells or Magic missile. Those were capped in D&D as well. There was I hight level version of Magic missle that allowed more missles and delayed blast fire ball had a higher cap that fireball. but they all had caps. it just didn't matter as much because everything had fewer hit points until 3rd ed.

ooo what was the higher level magic missile?

[Eviljames]

Lady-J wrote:

Eviljames wrote:

ChaosTicket wrote:

Well what spells stay useful from start to finish?

Magic Missile could be pretty useful if you gained another shot every level. Many spells gain +1d6 per level but have a cap in Pathfinder so everything ends up obsolete.

Without some very powerful spells than the entire system of limited spells per day is sort of pointless.

The original point of spells and spellcasters is that they are not practical or even powerful early on but once you do reach the higher levels then you have the ability to One-shot many enemies but even then you have to be careful or else youll be without spells.

NPCs would be more dangerous as they wouldnt need to concern themselves with conserving spells.

PAthfinder didn't cap the d6's on those spells or Magic missile. Those were capped in D&D as well. There was I hight level version of Magic missle that allowed more missles and delayed blast fire ball had a higher cap that fireball. but they all had caps. it just didn't matter as much because everything had fewer hit points until 3rd ed.

ooo what was the higher level magic missile?

Hang on, let me dig out my old Wizard's Spell compendium.

It was Improved Magic Missile (real obvious name)It was a 3rd level spell and it operated exactly like magic missile except that the cap was at 10 missiles. Even though you could cast it at 5th level it wasn't really useful until 11th level when you capped out the 1st level version. It was a spell from the Mystara Campaign setting even though it lacked that setting's typical long flowery spell names.

[Lady-J]

Eviljames wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Eviljames wrote:

ChaosTicket wrote:

Well what spells stay useful from start to finish?

Magic Missile could be pretty useful if you gained another shot every level. Many spells gain +1d6 per level but have a cap in Pathfinder so everything ends up obsolete.

Without some very powerful spells than the entire system of limited spells per day is sort of pointless.

The original point of spells and spellcasters is that they are not practical or even powerful early on but once you do reach the higher levels then you have the ability to One-shot many enemies but even then you have to be careful or else youll be without spells.

NPCs would be more dangerous as they wouldnt need to concern themselves with conserving spells.

PAthfinder didn't cap the d6's on those spells or Magic missile. Those were capped in D&D as well. There was I hight level version of Magic missle that allowed more missles and delayed blast fire ball had a higher cap that fireball. but they all had caps. it just didn't matter as much because everything had fewer hit points until 3rd ed.

ooo what was the higher level magic missile?

Hang on, let me dig out my old Wizard's Spell compendium.

It was Improved Magic Missile (real obvious name)It was a 3rd level spell and it operated exactly like magic missile except that the cap was at 10 missiles. Even though you could cast it at 5th level it wasn't really useful until 11th level when you capped out the 1st level version. It was a spell from the Mystara Campaign setting even though it lacked that setting's typical long flowery spell names.

so it was sort of like pathfinders mythic magic missile

[Bloodrealm]

Spells that stop scaling at a certain point don't become obsolete, they use up lower spell slots, and even then you can swap them for something that IS still useful in higher levels if you want to.

[Eviljames]

Lady-J wrote:

Eviljames wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

Eviljames wrote:

ChaosTicket wrote:

Well what spells stay useful from start to finish?

Magic Missile could be pretty useful if you gained another shot every level. Many spells gain +1d6 per level but have a cap in Pathfinder so everything ends up obsolete.

Without some very powerful spells than the entire system of limited spells per day is sort of pointless.

The original point of spells and spellcasters is that they are not practical or even powerful early on but once you do reach the higher levels then you have the ability to One-shot many enemies but even then you have to be careful or else youll be without spells.

NPCs would be more dangerous as they wouldnt need to concern themselves with conserving spells.

PAthfinder didn't cap the d6's on those spells or Magic missile. Those were capped in D&D as well. There was I hight level version of Magic missle that allowed more missles and delayed blast fire ball had a higher cap that fireball. but they all had caps. it just didn't matter as much because everything had fewer hit points until 3rd ed.

ooo what was the higher level magic missile?

Hang on, let me dig out my old Wizard's Spell compendium.

It was Improved Magic Missile (real obvious name)It was a 3rd level spell and it operated exactly like magic missile except that the cap was at 10 missiles. Even though you could cast it at 5th level it wasn't really useful until 11th level when you capped out the 1st level version. It was a spell from the Mystara Campaign setting even though it lacked that setting's typical long flowery spell names.

so it was sort of like pathfinders mythic magic missile

Yeah pretty much, which kinda makes sense, if you consider that the spell is from the Mystara setting and Mystara was the OD&D campaign world updated for 2nd ed and in OD&D becoming an Immortal godling was part of your progression.

[Klorox]

Eviljames wrote:

PAthfinder didn't cap the d6's on those spells or Magic missile. Those were capped in D&D as well. There was I hight level version of Magic missle that allowed more missles and delayed blast fire ball had a higher cap that fireball. but they all had caps. it just didn't matter as much because everything had fewer hit points until 3rd ed.

Uh, I distinctly remember that in AD&D 1st ed spells like Magic Missile and Fireball were definitely uncapped... do you remember if it started with 2nd ed or with 3.0?

[Vidmaster7]

I wanna say 3rd.