| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 12 Jul 2006 : 14:27:46
I'm starting to see a trend that I had started to see in the latter years of 2nd edition. I'm beginning to see spells which are of what I would consider poor design, as if the editors were so busy trying to get material out that some things slipped through the cracks. The issue had gotten so bad in 2nd edition that my alternative was that I finally just started embracing it all. The campaign became very magic centric after that.
Don't get me wrong, the stuff WotC puts out as spells when 3E first came out were extremely balanced (especially compared to those put out by third party competitors), but recent trends are making me less likely to allow players to use whatever they find in a book (it was nice there for a while). I find these types of things with certain authors in particular (for instance, I've found a tendency for Bruce Cordell to write spell concepts up for what they do, but then he uses a different bonus than what would be implied by the concept... for instance stating that someone gives someone a glimpse of the future but having it give the person a competence bonus instead of an insight bonus, because there's few spells of said level giving the competence bonus)
This came up recently when one of my player's came up to me with a spell from Frostburn that didn't require a save and drained 3d6 dex with a touch attack (I believe the spell was 4th lvl and named shivering touch). Of course, quicken said spell and attack with a dexterity dmg'ing poisoned weapon and you are likely to drop many a beastie. There were a few others as well, which I feel after reading them I need to do research on before outright banning them (I have a conspirator's mind when it comes to spell combos, so sometimes I see some very nasty things that aren't readily apparent to others). For example, another was the bloodstar spell which dropped a person's con by 1 each time they are hit (fort save allowed). Now, this doesn't sound too bad until you have the person dual-wielding a pair of wounding short swords with con-damaging poison on them, oh and throw in the haste spell just for good measure.
This all being said, the reason why I wrote this thread is I don't have a ton of time to review through books to make a listing of banned spells. I also understand that some people may see no problem with X spell and would allow it in their campaign. I don't want this thread to turn into that kind of discussion, as it tends to turn ugly. What I would like to know is if there is any specific spell that you ban from your campaign, and why you ban it (briefly). In this way, perhaps together we can make a listing. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 22:18:07
>>I kind of feel bad . . . the only real thing we have agreed on, and this is only two of us, >>that pertains to Sleyvas' original question, is that Power Word: Pain is not a good spell, >>and that even those of us that aren't rules lawyers or balance wonks think this.
Ah, don't worry about it KnighterrantJr. At least I know to watch for that one. When I was younger, I would have naturally made up every spellbook my player's come across. However, as time has flown and my player's won't to know what new spells they can add to their spellbooks, I've adopted another method. I believe in the idea that people sell captured spellbooks. In return, when my players are interested in buying a used spellbook, I make up the numbers of spells in about 4 or 5 spellbooks. I then put a percentage of the number of spells in said spellbook at each level the character already knows (i.e. 16 1st lvl spells of which they know 70%, 12 2nd lvl of which they know 60%, 4 3rd lvl of which they know 30%). Magic shop owners want to sell the whole book, not bits and pieces, and therefore players are obliged to buy the whole book, even if they already know 70%-90% of the spells within it. However, all this being said, I let them pick what spells the books have in them (though I give final approval). Thus, I was ultimately hoping to be able to give my player's a list and say "make sure not to include these while you're looking). Granted, there's only a few spells that I do this with, but the few are usually the ones they hunt down.
Phillip aka Sleyvas
|
| msatran |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 16:55:43
In my game, Power Word, Pain is bannned. Touch of Idiocy is banned. I'm certain that people don't actually read these spells and playtest them before they play them. Power Word Pain is slow death, no save until level fourteen, if you have a low con score. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 16:13:15
quote:
Originally posted by Wandering_mage
That is a ridiculously overpowered spell (keen sense for the obvious).  There has to be errata for this.  Or you could adjust the level to a higher spell level and make it exclusive to Loviatar worshippers. Oh, and it could involve a material component of a case of burning hemorro...? I might have gone too far with that joke. -looks around nervously- Goodjokeyoulaugh?
Hence why it's banned in my games and I've had that same thought about a faith that could use it but it's a arcane spell. :) |
| Wandering_mage |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 13:05:27
That is a ridiculously overpowered spell (keen sense for the obvious). There has to be errata for this. Or you could adjust the level to a higher spell level and make it exclusive to Loviatar worshippers. Oh, and it could involve a material component of a case of burning hemorro...? I might have gone too far with that joke. -looks around nervously- Goodjokeyoulaugh? |
| Kuje |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 01:54:01
quote:
Originally posted by Mazrim_Taim
What exactly does Power Word Pain do?
Instantly deals 1d6 points of damage to one creature of your choice and another 1d6 points of damage per round for as long as the spell lasts. No save throw allowed. If a creature has 50 or less HP's, not HD, but HP's, the spell last for 4d4 rounds. 51 to 75 hp's it lasts for 2d4 rounds. 76 to 100 hp's, 1d4 rounds.
So if you max that, you could do, in theory, 96 points of damage using a 1st level spell. Now if a sorcerer has this spell, it could cast it at least 3 to 4, or more, times as a 1st level character.
Note: the book claims that this is a 1st level spell. |
| Mazrim_Taim |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 01:48:38
What exactly does Power Word Pain do? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 01:33:32
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Nothing springs to mind for me either, thought the Orb spells and what school they belong to have been something that I have thought about before.
Since we're on that school discussion, I returned the Cure spells back to Necromancy, usually. And some of the other spells from 1e and 2e that are still in 3/3.5e back to the schools they were in the old rules.
Heh... I did exactly the same thing, with the Cure spells.
And for the most part, 1e/2e spells brought into 3e have received the same kind of attention, though there's been only a few that I'm stuck on about whether to change them back to their original schools.
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 01:25:25
The orb spells should have been evocations by all logic. By making them conjuration they created spells that ignored spell resistance, but where does "force" or "sonic" exist that you could summon? The spells create an orb of energy, which is, by definition, evocation. Acid arrow is only conjuration because it creates "something" that does acid damage. Dispite this, I could see argueing that you can summon fire, acid, and ice (not cold) from somewhere, but these have several creatures that are immune them, and on top of that, they don't summon something that does that damage, they directly summon the energy type.
Flaming Sphere used to be conjuration, but its evocation now. By that logic, Orb of Fire should be evocation . . .
Ah, nevermind . . . you see the point. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 01:13:25
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Nothing springs to mind for me either, thought the Orb spells and what school they belong to have been something that I have thought about before.
Since we're on that school discussion, I returned the Cure spells back to Necromancy, usually. And some of the other spells from 1e and 2e that are still in 3/3.5e back to the schools they were in the old rules. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 00:24:23
Nothing springs to mind for me either, thought the Orb spells and what school they belong to have been something that I have thought about before. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 00:18:17
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I kind of feel bad . . . the only real thing we have agreed on, and this is only two of us, that pertains to Sleyvas' original question, is that Power Word: Pain is not a good spell, and that even those of us that aren't rules lawyers or balance wonks think this.
True enough
But it just goes to show that all of us, even if you're not a DM, have different house rules on how we go about using and giving spells. :)
Other then that Power Word spell, I can't think of any other current 3/3.5e spells that I've banned. |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 00:17:40
Ok - thanks for the explenation. I actually use a somewhat similar way to deal with divine spellcasters - they pray to their gods but any prayers they like, but of yourse it is up to the god to grant them. SO if the player doesn't stick to the dogma of the characters deity - no spell granted. This is somewhat good to encourage good role playing, but it has its downsides. Players sometimes, especially in very critical situations don't understnd why the god is not granting the particular spell and - since basically every spell (lmited to the PHB and FRCS though) might be possible to cast at any time it sometimes takes forever to choose that spell. It was fun in the low-level-campaign but is not very handy in high-level games as there the PC has lots of spells he can cast and on top lots of spell levels to choose from. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 00:09:13
I kind of feel bad . . . the only real thing we have agreed on, and this is only two of us, that pertains to Sleyvas' original question, is that Power Word: Pain is not a good spell, and that even those of us that aren't rules lawyers or balance wonks think this.
|
| Crust |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 00:02:21
quote:
Originally posted by Wandering_mage
3. I would also like to say to Crust. I feel your pain but if the players are beating your monsters that easily then you gotta read up on some of the nastier spells avaiable to you the DM.  (i.e.-spells of your own make, necromatic spells that drain levels, and grappling the parties wizards every now and then with a Draegloth; my mean DM friend suggested all of this and it is mostly theory but I will keep it in my pocket for now)  It is criminal not to have a decent challenge for your players. Plus that is no fun for the DM. Of course I am always flexible on my views and enjoy every ones input very much.
The gelugon was one of several ice devil lords ruling the great glaciers of Loviatar's realm in the Barrens of Doom and Despair. The gelugon that was hosed by the arcane trickster (who had 27 levels at the time) was served by two advanced cornugons, four winter wights, and a horde of hamatula and barbazu (who either ran away or died in the spell exchange). When the gelugon lord was killed, a xixecal was called to respond to the intruders and defend the portal entrance the PCs sought. The colossal ice monster lumbered toward the glacier's outer face, fiendish white dragons swooping and diving about its shoulders, while the PCs slew the devils inhabiting the frozen halls. The portal laid exposed to the elements, thrust out at the end of an icy spur overlooking a 150' drop to a bed of jagged ice and artic tundra. The PCs had to slay some six fiendish adult white dragons AND avoid the xixecal's attacks. The wizard and the arcane trickster actually tried battling the towering ice monster, drawing it away from the barbarian and cleric fighting the dragons. When they realized they couldn't win against the xixecal, they all flew into the portal and moved onto the "Quicksilver Hourglass" module from Dungeon #123 (heavily modified, of course).
The session certainly wasn't over when the gelugon died. In fact, it had only just begun. 
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 00:00:14
quote:
Originally posted by Dhomal
Hello-
I dont think I've ever run a game wher ethe PCs took cantrips.
That's because no edition of D&D has handled cantrips properly. They are always described as minor little magical effects, things apprentice spellslingers learn before moving on to real spells. And yet, given this description, the rules have always gone a different way with them, violating the stated flavor and intent of the cantrips.
One of my 2E characters was a fighter-mage. I used the Cantrip proficiency that was presented in Dragon magazine for him. As I recall, from 1st to 8th level, you could toss 4 + 1/level cantrips per day. Until 4th level, you had to make a proficiency check each time. Past 4th level, you didn't have to make the check, and past 8th level, you could toss off an unlimited amount of cantrips.
That method made cantrips something that could be used without wasting a spell slot, thus making them more viable. With cantrips being so readily useable, I was quick to use them at every opportunity. I cast them to flavor food, to heat food, to clean and mend clothing, to shave (my character was kinda vain)... I looked for chances to use them, and tossed far more cantrips than I did spells.
I know that the current ruleset doesn't support using cantrips like that... and that's a shame. I think that people don't use cantrips much because the rules don't encourage them to do so.
I know that 1E used a specific list of cantrips, and 3E does, as well. That, too, is part of the problem: why should such minor little magical effects be something you have to memorize? Visualize the effect you want, make a gesture that echoes/supports your intent, make the appropriate skill check (to see if you can properly focus the magic), and you're good. I don't see why it should be anything more than that...
Anyway, I know that's not the current rules, but, as I said, it's something that has always been a pet peeve of mine. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 23:45:43
quote:
Originally posted by Ergdusch
As for divine spell casters - what do you mean by "lore of FR for divine spell casters"?
I summerized it in the post that you quoted but Ed's discussed it more then I have in his replies.
But to repeat, divine casters can pray for a spell but if the deity doesn't think that divine caster deserves it or even needs it that day, then the divine caster doesn't recieve it or the divine caster recieves a different spell that the deity thinks that divine caster needs. Divine casters who aren't that faithful lose their spells because the deity stop's granting the spells until that divine caster returns to that deities dogma, faith, worship, etc.
I also keep the old rules of 1e and 2e which are: demipowers can only grant spells up to a certain spell level, lesser a few more spell levels, intermediate a few more, and greater deities can grant all spell levels. Cantrips/orisons to 2nd level divine spells can be cast by willpower if that character is faithful. |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 23:24:31
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Ergdusch
IMO restricting some spells (from special sources i.e.) is fine - but watching over every single spell a player might get... I don't know, guys?! Where is the fun in playing a wizard when you have no say in what spells you may cast! It's like telling the fighter which feats to pic, the rogue which skills to focus on and the cleric which God to worship!
If it works for you and your players - fine. However, it's just not how I see the game.
I do this for divine caster PC's at times as a DM because I use the lore for FR about divine casters. I.E. Sometimes the deities just don't want that divine caster to have that spell and the deity wants the divine caster to have this one instead for a specific reason. Or sometimes they even give the divine caster an extra spell.
And as the others have said, there are times PC arcane casters don't get the spells they are after. The NPC might not know that spell, might not be willing to trade for it, might have different spells, might never even have heard of such a spell, etc. Some arcane caster, or divine caster for that matter for divine spellbooks/scrolls, had to be the one to write those spells into spellbooks/scrolls, using thier time, energy, materials, etc.
I've already told my current email game wizards that they can only choose spells from the phb, frcs, and Magic of Faerun. Anything else we'll discuss it or I'll think about it. And this is even more of a issue with cantrips because people argue that that PHB passage of, "A wizard starts with ALL cantrips" means exactly what it says, they can start with ALL cantrips from ALL sourcebooks. Sorry, I don't think so.
Hi Kuje!
It seems we are not that far apart with our opinions. I allow one three books to pic spells from - PHB MoF and FRCS. And of course as a DM I have a say about what spells a found spellbook contains and which spells might be available at magic shops. In that way I do restrict the excess of magic as well. However, I do not "choose" for the player when it comes to level advancement. There the player is free to pic the spells he likes, from the above mentioned books only, of course. So thats what I head in mind when I said - where is the fun in playing a wizard when you have no say about what spells to cast.
Got me? Hope so...
As for divine spell casters - what do you mean by "lore of FR for divine spell casters"? |
| Kuje |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 23:16:32
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Hm . . . maybe I should make up The Book of Infinate Cantrips for the Compendium?
HAHAHA. I'd love to see that. :) Maybe it was once a huge set of cantrips that has since been broken up but many of the common cantrips that can be found in FR were/are in all of the set. :) |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 23:04:22
Hm . . . maybe I should make up The Book of Infinate Cantrips for the Compendium?
|
| GothicDan |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 23:03:01
quote:
2. GothicDan, you got guts. I wish I could tell my players to walk but they are a mix of mensa members, well read debaters, and plain whiners some times. Frankly without them I have no players. Plus they are my friends.
A) I consider myself pretty intelligent. Most people don't study Physics, Mathematics, and Classics all at once in college and remain on the Dean's List. :) That being said, I would say the majority of my friends are just as intelligent as I am, and if anything, that allows them to see my logic even better.
B) I would love to debate with a player, if they had a true argument. And I'd even give in, IF I was truly moved. But so far everyone's just agreed with me that what I've ruled makes sense, often without any discussion needed.
C) I hate whiners. ;)
D) I tell my players all of this before they start playing, so it's not like I shove them out, so no one's offended. :) Me and my best friend since 4th grade are working on putting together a hightly manipulative, intrigue-based Game of Thrones RPG based around actual in-character correspondences/letters sent by 'ravens' to each other. Me and my friend are actually going to buy little toy ravens, and deliver them to the other players after an amount of time based on a random dice roll. Everything is DM-controlled...
These are the kind players I play with. :) |
| Wandering_mage |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 22:29:22
1. I am laughing my *$% off thinking about a spellbook full of cantrips. No wizard in his right mind would do that. Ever. So basically sticking with the PHB for cantrips already known and buying more for like 2gp or 5gp a pop and having them easy to buy then every one is happy. Plus a cantrip spellbook would just plain suck.  I think every one can agree on that one. Or heck just do a little magic with some house rules and 2 edition the cantrip use in your 3.5 game. Oh and a cantrip takes one page. That is detailed in the PHB magic section I believe. No mater what a 0-level spell takes one page up.
2. GothicDan, you got guts. I wish I could tell my players to walk but they are a mix of mensa members, well read debaters, and plain whiners some times. Frankly without them I have no players.  Plus they are my friends.
3. I would also like to say to Crust. I feel your pain but if the players are beating your monsters that easily then you gotta read up on some of the nastier spells avaiable to you the DM. (i.e.-spells of your own make, necromatic spells that drain levels, and grappling the parties wizards every now and then with a Draegloth; my mean DM friend suggested all of this and it is mostly theory but I will keep it in my pocket for now) It is criminal not to have a decent challenge for your players. Plus that is no fun for the DM. Of course I am always flexible on my views and enjoy every ones input very much.
I love me some magic!  |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 22:29:17
And I'd say that it certainly refers to ALL Cantrips. :) |
| Kuje |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 22:25:28
quote:
Originally posted by Dhomal
Hello-
Is there any mention as to how much space in a spellbook is taken up by cantrips?
My guess would be - if a 1st level spell is still one page - perhaps 1/4 a page? IN the case of cantrips then - I would say that you could put more than one on a page.
Or just modify my thought - and assume that 'Cantrip' IS the spell - and all the listingsof different cantrips are merely varaitions on its use. Would save a lot of spellbook space, as well as keep the 'you dont know it' possible - for versions that the PCs are not familiar with. It would also make coming up with their own, unique cantrips easier. Just depends on how you want to use them - and/or how much yuor players want to use them.
As an aside - are cantrips exclusive to Wizards - or do Sorcerers get access to them also? Just shoming my unfamiliarity w/ 3.X edition. :)
Dhomal
Page 178 of the 3.5e PHB, "A spell takes up one page of the spellbook per spell level, so a 2nd level spell takes two pages, a 5th level spell takes five pages, and so forth. Even a 0th-level spell (cantrip) takes one page. A spellbook has one hundred pages."
Of the PHB Classes only Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, and Clerics get cantrips/orisons.
And of the wizard/sorcer cantrips in 3.5e from the PHB alone there's 18 of them so that's 18 pages. Now add the rest from the other sourcebooks and you'll have at least a 100 page spellbook of cantrips if people argued that that passage says ALL cantrips from ALL sources.
So, as I said in my original point, this doesn't work for me and so I limit cantrips, if it's a FR game, to just the PHB and the FRCS and probably Magic of Faerun. Anything beyond those three, we'll discuss it. Same deal with 1st to 9th level spells. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 22:13:56
That's more how it was in 2E - Cantrip IS the spell. In 3E, I'm pretty sure that the Cantrips take up pages....
|
| Dhomal |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 21:48:49
Hello-
Is there any mention as to how much space in a spellbook is taken up by cantrips?
My guess would be - if a 1st level spell is still one page - perhaps 1/4 a page? IN the case of cantrips then - I would say that you could put more than one on a page.
Or just modify my thought - and assume that 'Cantrip' IS the spell - and all the listingsof different cantrips are merely varaitions on its use. Would save a lot of spellbook space, as well as keep the 'you dont know it' possible - for versions that the PCs are not familiar with. It would also make coming up with their own, unique cantrips easier. Just depends on how you want to use them - and/or how much yuor players want to use them.
As an aside - are cantrips exclusive to Wizards - or do Sorcerers get access to them also? Just shoming my unfamiliarity w/ 3.X edition. :)
Dhomal |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 21:37:08
If my players gave me a funny look because they weren't able to research a Fire spell only available in Thay and Calimshan, then I'd tell them to deal with it or leave. :)
And I agree with Kuje on the cantrips. In 2E, Cantrips were more like little magical 'tricks' - not actual spells. Like you didn't have to "memorize" them, just alot energy for using them. But in 3E they are actual spells, and they take up pages in the spellbook, so I don't like the idea that Wizards start with ALL of them. |
| Dhomal |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 20:59:43
Hello-
I dont think I've ever run a game wher ethe PCs took cantrips. However - i remember back when they were introduced - and (IIRC) you had to allot a 1st level 'slot' to be able to cast 4 or so of them. What I kinda-thought worked for me - was if a PC/NPC wanted to use a slot so as to be able to cast 4 cantrips - they could generally pick which ones they wanted to cast on the fly. My reasoning was - the cantrip itself was almost a separate spell - but one with some variables - mainly - which effect do you want. Its not unheard or to have choices when casting a spell - so I figured that the cantrip's variable was - which version.
Now - I could definately see limiting the list of what the PC knows about via training (lets face it - these are the first spells Wizards learn to cast - basically before they 'reach' 1st level.) and has the most experience with. That being said however - if a PC Wizard was learning his trade from a very messy Mentor - he may not be familiar with the cantrip for dusting (or conversely - it could be the first one taught to him, depending on the Mentor's needs/wishes); Or a Wizard who is say - and aquatic elf - surly may not learn the 'drying' cantrip - unless of course their only source of spells was a landlubbers book that was kept dry, or some such.
As I said - Ive never had players WANT to take them - so its somewhat a moot point for me - but thats my take if it were to come up.
Dhomal |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 20:58:05
Its minor damage unless your wizard has a good amount of sneak attack damage from rogue levels . . . then all of the sudden you are killing off fairly powerful opponents with ray of frost . . . |
| Kuje |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 20:56:59
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
On the other hand, if they are written out in spell books like other spells . . . then it gets problematic.
And that's it exactly. The current rules say they are spells that are supposed to be in spellbooks. That's gotta be a huge spellbook to contain 50+ cantrips. :) |
| Kuje |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 20:55:53
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
It's an issue for me because there are probably at least a hundred cantrips in sourcebooks to date and I have serious problems about someone knowing all of them.
See, that doesn't bother me, so long as I look at them the way they've always been described in text: minor little magical exercises that do no damage, are often used for training, and can be used for minor things like dusting shelves, drying clothes, mending small tears in cloth, shedding light equal to a candle, etc.
I'd prolly make them a skill, and do it similar to that proficiency article.
But that isn't the case for the current cantrips. Some of them do do damage, etc. :) Sure it's minor damage but it's still there and so I'm basing this on the current cantrips and so, as I said, it's an issue for me because people argue that that PHB passage says their wizards can start with ALL cantrips.
While, it sounds like to me, you are using house rules, which is fine but I'm not discussing house rules in terms of the official published cantrips. :) |
|
|
