| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 17:06:47
Hello fellow scribes
I was wondering which spells (if any) do you ban from your gaming table. Of course, my players (and probably yours too) learned that they'd better not abuse of certain spells (instant-death spells, I'm looking at you) but these spell are still allowed, with moderation. Then there are those I specifically banned, for both my NPCs and the PCs. Heres some of those.
- The three Celerity spells from PHII
- Fly, in combat situation (no more just flying above all those melee fighters, it's simply boring for everyone)
- Negative levels inflicting spells, such as enervation. Too cheap, and a pain to keep track (IMO)
- Sunbolt, the elf spell from 2nd ED, absurdingly too powerful.
- Polymorph/shapechange and the like, they are simply broken
Then there are tens of spells that I modified to make them balanced, but I won't present them all here.
What about yours?
Oh, and I'm aware that this is not FR specific, sorry about that. I'm just not interested to post in the wizard message posts. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Trebloc |
Posted - 29 Oct 2009 : 17:34:06
quote:
Originally posted by Hellkeepa
HELLo!
But there is a roll for both the items dispelled and the spells, as per the SRD on MD:
quote:
That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item.
In other words: Spells and spell like abilities are dispelled like the normal "Dispel Magic", magic items gets a will save to avoid being disjunctioned.
Oh, we understand that you roll for each item. With that many rolls though, something is going to get disjuncted. This is more from a fun perspective as our thoughts were either:
a - some PC could get real unlucky with the dice and lose a fair share of gear.
b - PC's reluctance to use this against the enemy due to disjuncting the loot they hope to get.
c - Royally fubaring somebodies' plans with 1 spell, either DM or PC's. Watching plans fall apart on either side is always fun, but to have it punked by a single spell probably isn't.
quote:
As for a means to counter the multiple SMIX in timestop: Banishment/Dismissal. Not to mention that it would drain all the level IX spells for that mage, which (barring very high int + powerful magic items) is only 4. That is 1 spell slot for Time Stop, and 3 SMIX. That's a whole lot of resources, which is quite easily countered by the use of one level 7 spell (or 3 level 5).
Banishment will only get 2-3 summons if you opt to use Summon9 to get you 1d4+1 Summon 7's. 6-15 elementals eating your face off is a bit harsh. Granted, Holy Word could get rid of all of those in one shot.
Or perhaps Timestop + Delayed Blast Fireball? Or Force Cage + Silence + Cloudkill?
Either way, the thoughts were that this would likely be used against the party far more often than for the party, since if the party is coming up against a caster who can do this, they've probably gone through a few lackey's first, so their resources will be drained. And they likely have to deal with this caster + some more goons. |
| shandiris |
Posted - 25 Oct 2009 : 12:22:54
Hmm, lots of interesting choices here. However I must say that I ussualy play in a more high powered campaign, than the most of the people here on candlekeep.
First a couple of comments on your spell choices:
Celerity line: We’re thinking about this one and we already banned the immune to daze trick, if we would scrap them we would scrap: Anticapatory Strike (Cpsi) too.
Fly: Seriously? Do you ban all flying in combat? Things that have wings/druids/other spells too? I would never approve with that one, altough the idea for a Fly skill sounds very tempting idd.
Polymorph line, including shapechange and alter self: Must definatly agree, they give a wizard a bit too much power.
Quote:
“The same for polymorph spells? Why ban the spell if a physically weak wizard/sorcerer needs to change into an ogre or something to protect himself in combat or to go undercover to explore the dungeon?”
You obviously never saw a wizard with 44 str and 35 AC on lvl 12, or with 12 bite attacks (hydra)
Wraithstrike (SC): Don’t have a problem with it, altough we don’t allow persist on spells with 1min duration or less.
Consumptive Field: Agree here, banned that too, especcially since it causes lame tactics.
Rhino’s Rush: didn’t ban it, because if you fail that charge, in which you invested so much you don’t get another one the whole combat, and you ussualy don’t have enough room for other tricks.
Irresistible Dance: If a mage has suicidal issues, he can have them (touch spell)
Explosive Runes: If you try the dispel magic trick, you should die painfully, in a corner. Other than that it’s fine.
Nerveskitter: Fine
Time Stop: IMO, exactly what a lvl 9 spell should be, very good, but against enemies of ECL 17 or higher it rarely wins the combat by itself.
Disjunction: We changed the casting time to 1 minute. And I think the person who used it in it’s old state in our game would be gutted by the other players (whether the caster is a DM or a player)
Our own bans/fixes:
Altough not directly a spell ban we’re thinking of ways of modifying the incantrix 3 ability, and divine metamagic, for the persistent spell mumbojumbo.
Contact other Plane and Astral Projection: Well not a ban, but when people use it, they don’t get the effect they want, AT ALL
Contigency Spell: (and the Craft Contigency spell feat): Ready actions that last are a lifetime are annoying, overpowered and you discuss for over a century over them, so we banned it.
|
| Hellkeepa |
Posted - 22 Oct 2009 : 19:57:59
HELLo!
But there is a roll for both the items dispelled and the spells, as per the SRD on MD:
quote:
That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item.
In other words: Spells and spell like abilities are dispelled like the normal "Dispel Magic", magic items gets a will save to avoid being disjunctioned.
Removing the level cap on the dispel check, on the other hand, is something I can understand and wholly agree with. :-)
As for a means to counter the multiple SMIX in timestop: Banishment/Dismissal. Not to mention that it would drain all the level IX spells for that mage, which (barring very high int + powerful magic items) is only 4. That is 1 spell slot for Time Stop, and 3 SMIX. That's a whole lot of resources, which is quite easily countered by the use of one level 7 spell (or 3 level 5).
Just throwing my 2cp out there. ;-)
Happy playin'! |
| Trebloc |
Posted - 22 Oct 2009 : 15:16:08
quote:
Originally posted by Hellkeepa
HELLo!
Time Stop is rather limited already, and by nixing summoning you've removed one of the only three applications of it. As quoted from the SRD:
quote:
While the time stop is in effect, other creatures are invulnerable to your attacks and spells; you cannot target such creatures with any attack or spell. A spell that affects an area and has a duration longer than the remaining duration of the time stop have their normal effects on other creatures once the time stop ends.
That means, the time limit of the spells you cast when in time stop is still running, without the spell having any effect on anyone else but you yourself. Even if the summoned monsters attack, they won't do any damage. (I'd rule that they don't get any actions until after Time Stop runs out, but the rounds would count against their limit.)
The potential for casting multiple Summon Monster 9's exists though, having either the party or the enemy at a sever disadvantage with no easy counter. That was our thoughts after it was used once. And I am sure there are quite a few deadlier combos that can be used as well.
quote:
Also, could you describe the changes to Mordenkainen's Disjunction a bit better? I'm not quite sure I understood what you've done to it, and why.
Greater Dispel Magic tops out at level 20 when you add your caster level to it when trying to dispel something. We just made Disjunction act like Dispel Magic without having the level cap of 20, allowing for Epic-level casters to be dispellable. As it is, Disjunction was way overpowered in our eyes due to how it would dispel everything without needing a single roll. And of course the obvious hard feelings it could cause when used against the party, blowing up all their items. |
| Hellkeepa |
Posted - 19 Oct 2009 : 04:09:10
HELLo!
Regarding the "Detect Evil" ability of paladins, our primary DM has done a quite genious thing about it; The evil NPC does not need to be involved in anything illegal, and often is in such a position that the PCs can't do anything about him without transgressing against the local laws and/or public opinion even if he was. Result being one majorly frustrated Paladin, who doesn't know what do to. :-D
Of course, spells or rings of Undetectable Alignment is also an oft-found item on those NPCs we might encounter in combat.
Happy playin'! |
| Sian |
Posted - 18 Oct 2009 : 12:26:45
with "Detect Evil" our group (the gamesavyy of us that is, the GM, his brother and me) have 'just' forcefed our Paladin (who as a new D&D player is slightly easier to manipulate) with the opinion, that they only use it when they have a reason to believe something should give a pling on the radar |
| goatunit |
Posted - 17 Oct 2009 : 14:53:54
In my game, "Detect Evil" functions only against entities of pure evil (such as demons) and individuals currently engaged in an evil act. I get more restrictive with it when the paladin jams up the "at will" aspect of his related ability. |
| Hellkeepa |
Posted - 15 Oct 2009 : 19:58:19
HELLo!
Time Stop is rather limited already, and by nixing summoning you've removed one of the only three applications of it. As quoted from the SRD:
quote:
While the time stop is in effect, other creatures are invulnerable to your attacks and spells; you cannot target such creatures with any attack or spell. A spell that affects an area and has a duration longer than the remaining duration of the time stop have their normal effects on other creatures once the time stop ends.
That means, the time limit of the spells you cast when in time stop is still running, without the spell having any effect on anyone else but you yourself. Even if the summoned monsters attack, they won't do any damage. (I'd rule that they don't get any actions until after Time Stop runs out, but the rounds would count against their limit.)
Also, could you describe the changes to Mordenkainen's Disjunction a bit better? I'm not quite sure I understood what you've done to it, and why.
Happy playin'! |
| Trebloc |
Posted - 15 Oct 2009 : 14:32:34
For my group, we've agreed to not be cheesy with Wind Walk. Once it becomes time to infiltrate an enemy stronghold/dungeon, everyone forgets they have it. We did this after basically saying "the enemies aren't dumb, they will have their stronghold prepared for something like Wind Walk. Either that, we we all agree not to use it for stuff other than travel."
We've changed Mord's Disjunction to just be a dispel magic that doesn't have a level cap added to it.
For timestop, the caster is not allowed to cast any spells that would cause the enemy to take a saving through when timestop ends, nor are they allowed to cast a summon spell. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 13 Oct 2009 : 08:02:03
I don't think I have ever banned a spell, but then again almost no-one plays mages or wizards in my campaigns. Even if I wanted to ban a spell, I would probably go with making the spell extremely difficult to find in stead.
As far as I remember the only things I have banned are Ring of Vampirism (?), Fremlin and Sprite characters and time-travel. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 12 Oct 2009 : 22:57:13
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
To the OP: If you've banned shapechange/polymorph spells in your game, how do you handle druids? Or are they the only ones who have this unique ability in your games?
We have not played a druid since we switched to 3.0/3.5 (closest thing we had was a spirit shaman, which doesn't have a shape change ability IIRC) so we didn't have to cross that bridge yet. However, I don't think this is gonna be a problem if it ever comes to that. We would first try it with everything it gots, and see if it all makes sense (it does 99% of the times). |
| Quale |
Posted - 12 Oct 2009 : 07:57:17
we potentially allow all spells, but the system is different, similar to 3e epic level magic, there are no spell levels, spells are dependent on the arcana skill |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 11 Oct 2009 : 15:36:24
In our campaign we dont ban spells... sometimes feats and the likes... but spells we dont. Thou sometimes some spells are hard to come by, and for that reason not in play. That how my DM keeps the game ballanced. For instance the spell called Two Minds I have yet to find. Sort of a ban...
This was a load of .... he he |
| Sandro |
Posted - 10 Oct 2009 : 05:20:55
quote:
We don't even carry a secondary weapon, such as a bow, so on a one-on-one battle between one of our fighter vs any mage, if the mage fly, we are screwed. We know it, we understand it, and we accept it. Result: we agree that we don't fly out of reach.
Seems to me that it's just a rather cheap way to stop opponents from exploiting your party's greatest weakness -- if I were the DM, and I noticed such a glaring problem, I'd have the party confront a (weak) mage that could fly, showing them their weakness but not killing them in the process. However, it's your game to play how you see fit -- don't let me tell you how to do things.  |
| Diffan |
Posted - 10 Oct 2009 : 02:59:18
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Nerveskitter (PH)- +5 to Initiative for an Immediate reaction and only a level 1 spell. Wow.
Many first level spells in 3e replicate feats. Nerveskitter is good, but nothing unbalanced.
Wasn't this spell originally 'Kaupaer's Skittish Nerves' from MoF? Our group's wizard (3E) always has a Persistent version of it active, which along with other Persistent Buffs (and Improved Initiative) give him something like +15 Init modifier... 
Exactly. And it's just one more reason why I've switched to 4e. By 7th level, wizards don't really get too much 'umph' from their 1st level spells (except magic missile and the "orb" spells) so it's nothing to spend a slot for this one. And because it's only a 1st level spell, it's cheap to create as a wand too.
To the OP: If you've banned shapechange/polymorph spells in your game, how do you handle druids? Or are they the only ones who have this unique ability in your games? |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 09 Oct 2009 : 01:02:00
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Nerveskitter (PH)- +5 to Initiative for an Immediate reaction and only a level 1 spell. Wow.
Many first level spells in 3e replicate feats. Nerveskitter is good, but nothing unbalanced.
Wasn't this spell originally 'Kaupaer's Skittish Nerves' from MoF? Our group's wizard (3E) always has a Persistent version of it active, which along with other Persistent Buffs (and Improved Initiative) give him something like +15 Init modifier... |
| Arivia |
Posted - 08 Oct 2009 : 13:01:53
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Nerveskitter (PH)- +5 to Initiative for an Immediate reaction and only a level 1 spell. Wow.
Many first level spells in 3e replicate feats. Nerveskitter is good, but nothing unbalanced. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 08 Oct 2009 : 03:41:18
Hmm...ban is a strong word to use and I, myself never ban any spells from the table. I can, however, see certain spells being banned or "nerfed" here's a few that come to mind
Wraithstrike (SC)- Attacks become touch attacks and it's swift casting and only 2nd level. Easily abused with a Persistant Spell metamagic feat.
Consumptive Field (SC)- This and it's greater version blows buffing out of the water for evil PCs who wade into a town of commoners and beat them within 1 hp and then drain away the rest.
Mass Fly (SC)- For obvious reasons (i'm looking at you OP,  ).
Rhino's Rush (SC)- Double damage on a charge.....with a Valorous lance....on a mount = Instant death to any target hit.
Otto's Irrestable Dance (PH)- As if the fighter/melee type couldn't get more screwed in 3e.
Explosive Runes (PH)- Uh....Rune-bomb anyone?
Nerveskitter (PH)- +5 to Initiative for an Immediate reaction and only a level 1 spell. Wow.
Those are only some of the ones I can think of right off the top of my head that are a little powerful and could be considered "broken" and thus, banned. When I get some time to research, I'll come up with a few more.
|
| Kilvan |
Posted - 08 Oct 2009 : 00:56:43
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
As I said, Fly is a common spell in my campaign for various reasons, I just dont use it in combat.
There are similar psionic abilities that allow a character to become airborne, akin to what's granted by the Fly spell. Would you deny access to those abilities as well?
As I said, I won't deny it's access, but my players won't be tempted to use them.
I really did not expect that me not using the Fly spells would generate so much surprise. I understand all your points about this spell not being broken and rather easy to counter, but we don't use it, because we don't like it. We are the type of fighter that choose a favored weapon at first level, greatsword, battle axe, whatever, and we stick by it all the way. We don't even carry a secondary weapon, such as a bow, so on a one-on-one battle between one of our fighter vs any mage, if the mage fly, we are screwed. We know it, we understand it, and we accept it. Result: we agree that we don't fly out of reach.
It is not because I'm a tyrant DM, not because we are too stupid to find another way, or too stuborn to carry a bow, we just don't like it, period. I'm sorry if I sound rude, but I did not expect this scroll to go this way. I didn't take offense from any of your comments, but this was not my intention to generate a thread about my house-rule to not fly in combat. I just thought that I was certainly not the only one to dislike some spells that some would probably think as fine, I wanted to know which ones. It seems I was mistaken. |
| Hellkeepa |
Posted - 08 Oct 2009 : 00:35:01
HELLo!
Kysus: Don't forget the, rather high, probability that a god or some other powerful entity might just take offence to said artifact being destroyed. This in itself is a huge deterrant, which all mages able to cast MD knows (or are likely to find out very quickly). ;-)
As for which spells I/my groups have banned: None, really. We never had an issue with players abusing spells, or spells being too powerful. There are always ways to counter a spell, and for those few times where there's been some discourse about a particular spell we've always been able to get to an agreement about it. Most of it, I think, comes from a mutual understanding that if the players abuse a certain spell/thing/rule, the DM will most assuredly too; And the DM has loads more "lives" than the players do. ;-)
The only things that we've restricted is stuff from the Book of Exalted Deeds, Vile Darkness and similar exceptionaly powerful resources. Those are on "approval basis" only, and have been used quite a few times after a discussion with the DM.
Happy codin'! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Oct 2009 : 00:31:31
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
As I said, Fly is a common spell in my campaign for various reasons, I just dont use it in combat.
There are similar psionic abilities that allow a character to become airborne, akin to what's granted by the Fly spell. Would you deny access to those abilities as well?
|
| kysus |
Posted - 08 Oct 2009 : 00:22:16
There are a few spells that I myself as a dm restricted for my players on how they work mostly because certain players of mine manage to break them. But I don't completely ban them from use I just make certain modifications on either acquiring them or what they do depending on the severity of it. One such spell for me that I've had problems with in the past is the mordenkainen's disjunction spell which i set to allow in to destroy an artifact to be a flat 10% chance of being destroyed and the person who does manage to destroy one to have a 50% chance of losing all spellcasting capability. The main reason i have switch to doing this is I have always felt that artifacts should be used for major plot devices in a storyline and shouldn't be able to be destroyed so easily, which somehow some of my players had manage to do through maniplutating varies prestige classes and feats. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 23:28:52
Maybe "ban" was a strong word (I guess it is). I should have said, a common arrangement. These are the spells that I don't like thrown my way (as a DM) and that my players don't like when I it use against them. As a result, we all agreed on this deal: Don't use it against me, I won't use it against you. Take the negative levels for example, we all hate it, so we don't use it, period. After 10 years of playing with mostly the same people, through different games/settings/editions, we know what good for us (and, it seems, it is not the same as what is good for you)
I just wondered if you had the same problem with other spells. |
| Fizilbert |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 23:02:34
Well to be honest this is my first time DMing, though I have been a player for many many years. As a DM and as a player, I just can't imagine out-right banning a spell. But then again, it may turn out that as the mage(s) in my group get higher up in level, they may find some ways to abuse spells, and I may end up changing my mind then. But as of right now I dont ban any spells. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 22:20:15
Okay, I know I started it, but if I'd known that my comment was going to spawn a threadjacking, I'd've kept my mouth closed. Maybe we can redirect this discussion towards other methods of dealing with difficult spells or discussing how to stay on top of PCs that readily outmaneuver the DM (I fall into the latter category, myself!  ). |
| skychrome |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 22:01:43
Sorry for asking but I do not understand what is anoying about mages flying in combat?
What is the idea behind it? That they rather try to outrun attacking enemies or are forced to defend themself in close combat?
I am just curious because for me it is natural to keep the casters far away from melee.
Personally I think the Fly spell is a much bigger challenge for a DM when not being in combat, because it is one of those spells that makes it dificult to channel the PC the way one wants it to run the story.
I remember when we used to play the DSA (The Dark Eye) Campaign Setting, that spell that allowed to walk through walls made it almost impossible to maintain the storyline of adventures, especially in Dungeons and Cities... 
|
| Tyranthraxus |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 19:43:18
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by Tyranthraxus
If you ban the fly spell then it's no fun playing a wizard in combat.
That is quite a statement. I do believe that my players still enjoy playing a wizards, despite the lack of flying.
quote:
Originally posted by Tyranthraxus
Player's had a hard time the first levels and then you take their power?
Again, I do not believe that wizards lack in power (far from it) without this single spell. As a general rule, staring at level 5-6, wizards are amongst the most powerful classes, if not the the most powerful.
While I appreciated comments on my methods (otherwise I wouldn't have posted them) I am even more interested in what you do in your own campaign.
Like I said above. I try to think of ways to challange the players. There are a lot of ways of countering a flying character, not just ban spells or don't allow them in combat just because you don't want to give every single humanoid enemy a ranged attack.
I didn't mean to say it's no fun to play wizards/sorcerers at all without the fly spell but it simply sucks not being able to cast it in combat IMHO.
You could also talk to the player who always uses fly in combat telling him/her it's ok to use the spell but not every single encounter and explaining why.
If that doesn't work in your group that's ok, I didn't want to be negative about your way of DM'ing.
Outside combat fly can be an annoying spell. One time a player used fly to reach the top of a cliff while the rest of the party had a hard time climbing up. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 19:28:42
As I said, Fly is a common spell in my campaign for various reasons, I just dont use it in combat. |
| Wenin |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 19:26:00
I was disappointed when Fly was nerfed from 2.0 to 3.X..... I'd be depressed to have it completely removed.
Fly is just so cool.
I'd suggest increasing the casting time so that it can't be used in combat, if it is combat that is an issue. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 07 Oct 2009 : 19:03:00
<--- Pathfinder Update --->
Flying Magi: Created the Fly skill. Granted, it doesn't erase the issues all together, but it makes them think twice before trying to pull of some daring manuevers.
Negative Levels: Gone are the days of deconstructing your character when you get hit with energy drain. Now it's just a cumulative penalty until the levels are restored.
<--- End of Pathfinder Update ---> |
|
|
