| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kes_Alanadel |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 03:58:05
Tifus and I purchased this today. While I haven't had a good chance to really look it over well (will in a bit, since Tifus went to bed  ), the delighted chuckles from Tifus seems to indicate that it was a good purchase. Has anyone else purchased, or looked through it, and what are your opinions?
Oh, and we also bought Three-Dragon Ante as well. We did a quick run through of it, and I think it will be a fun game once we get some poker chips, or loose change to actually play it correctly .
~Kes
Edit:Woo Hoo, 100th post ....only a couple thousand to go  |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kes_Alanadel |
Posted - 21 Jan 2006 : 06:41:11
Instead of marking in the book, you could get some of those little post-it flags, and just write the original name on it. That way your book won't get marked up . Those are what Tifus and I use in all of our books to both mark pages, and to put little notes on.
~Kes |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 21 Jan 2006 : 01:12:52
I think that I have found a solution to the problem I have with this book, though I am still not happy with it. I would love to have such a consolidated resource, and the updates to several spells I definately want, but I am still steamed over the renaming/initiate spell issues. So, if I do get this, I think that I may have to break a rule of mine, get out the highlighters, and highlight any spell that has been renamed from a Realms spell (so that when I use it, I can give credit where credit is due), and use a different one to highlight anything that is an initiate spell. I NEVER mark in my books, but in this case, I don't want to have to flip back and forth to use it . . . grrr |
| Mystery_Man |
Posted - 09 Jan 2006 : 19:30:38
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery_Man
For me it's already been used just this last weekend in my FR campaign. One of my players used a spell from a "Complete" book and accidentally left his book at home. It was in there! Plus I read the spell description of what happens when he fired off the spell and everyone thought that was pretty sweet. Great book, highly recommended!
Agreed-that text is simply wonderful. All of these new format changes(since Races of Destiny introduced the new prestige class format) are excellent, although I must admit I still can't read prestige classes all the way through at once. Read the name, learn what role it fulfills, move on.
Same thing with me, and with feats. I can only read a few at a time before I start to nod off, though that could be age kicking in it's two bits as well...  |
| Arivia |
Posted - 09 Jan 2006 : 18:17:03
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery_Man
For me it's already been used just this last weekend in my FR campaign. One of my players used a spell from a "Complete" book and accidentally left his book at home. It was in there! Plus I read the spell description of what happens when he fired off the spell and everyone thought that was pretty sweet. Great book, highly recommended!
Agreed-that text is simply wonderful. All of these new format changes(since Races of Destiny introduced the new prestige class format) are excellent, although I must admit I still can't read prestige classes all the way through at once. Read the name, learn what role it fulfills, move on. |
| Mystery_Man |
Posted - 09 Jan 2006 : 15:58:30
For me it's already been used just this last weekend in my FR campaign. One of my players used a spell from a "Complete" book and accidentally left his book at home. It was in there! Plus I read the spell description of what happens when he fired off the spell and everyone thought that was pretty sweet. Great book, highly recommended! |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 09 Jan 2006 : 06:52:38
I was very tempted to buy this book, being a DM, but my current situation has me hosting the games at my place, so I just have to place my large pile of books at my sides, and then everything's ok.
Besides, I run a FR campaign, so I have no money and no time for a book that won't have the Initiate spells, or lack whatever else will be published in upcoming supplements... :P |
| Arivia |
Posted - 07 Jan 2006 : 22:05:48
UNOFFICIAL ERRATA FOR THE SPELL COMPENDIUM
General note: The new spell format is slightly different from the old one. There are a few cases where the rules text blocks are very closely tied to the descriptive text; arc of lightning is an example of this. Consider the descriptive text rules text that is specially formatted for being read-aloud; don't exclude it from rules interpretations. This is arguably in conflict with the definition of the new format on page 3, but my interpretation says it's okay.
Second General Note: I haven't done any rebalancing of spells as that'll just lead to endless rules arguments-I've just cleared up some errors. Prismatic eye(drop it a level), extract water elemental (only allow it to target Huge or smaller creatures, then create a greater version[I suggest Sor/Wiz 9] that allows targeting of creatures of any size, and can extract water monoliths[Complete Arcane] [this may additionally be an error in the SC]), general of undead(restore the increase from the PGtF), and heavenly host(add a warden archon[Book of Exalted Deeds] summoning 10 minutes after the hound archons) are all balance changes you might want to incorporate into your game. If anyone cares which ones I'm using, I'll be using the alterations to general of undead and heavenly host I've outlined.
page 11, Anarchic Storm: Range: 20 ft.
page 22, Axiomatic Storm: Range: 20 ft.
Area: Cylinder(20-ft. radius, 20-ft. high)
page 22, Axiomatic Water: Replace "lawful outsiders" with "chaotic outsiders".
page 121, Incorporeal Nova: Area: Incorporeal or gaseous creatures within a 50-ft radius burst
page 141, Miasma of Entropy: Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
page 167, Ray of Flame: Replace the subtype "[Flame]" with "[Fire]".
page 180, Sarcophagus of Stone: Level: Cleric 6
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft/level)
Target: One creature
Strike the "Materials" line from the end of the spell.
page 186, Shadow Spray: Duration: Instantaneous.
page 233, Wall of Gloom: Remove the [Fear] subtype from this spell.
page 254, 1st-Level Druid Spells: Replace "Thunderhead: Small lightning bolts deal 1d6 damage/round" with "Thunderhead: Small lightning bolts deal 1 damage/round"
page 268, 5th-Level Sorcerer/Wizard Spells: Add a subscript Dra (Draconomicon) after Draconic Polymorph, as the spell is not in the Spell Compendium.
That's what I found on the other boards of note. I'll see if I can get to looking at the other domains for Faerunian deities and a complete read of the book for errors at some point, but I'm not guaranteeing anything. If anyone spots any other errors in the book or in my errata, please post a note in this thread. Alaundo, if you want to throw this up on the main site, you're welcome to-use Erika Connolly as the name and you've got my email to connect with it.
EDIT: Added a variant for extract water elemental, added range for anarchic storm, refixed area for axiomatic storm, corrected thunderhead misdescription in the druid spell list. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 07 Jan 2006 : 20:14:52
Just picked this up-I haven't looked at much of it, yet, but I've got a few comments on some things in there as Candlekeep's resident rulesmaiden.
Sarcophagus of Stone: A quick, cursory look at this spell suggests to me that to fix it, insert "As imprisonment except" at the beginning of the rules text block. THIS IS PROBABLY NOT ACTUALLY CORRECT BUT IS JUST A QUICK IDEA. A short clarification: Although the duration seems off at first glance, it's correct(see fabricate, I think.)
I'll look through the various threads on the Boards That Must Not Be Named and the rest of this thread about it and try and compile a rules edit list/informal errata for our use. |
| Mystery_Man |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 02:35:00
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery_Man
This book is well done. The best part about it are the spell descriptions, very cool. And as far as the generic renaming goes it's not much of a problem (at least for me) and they do redeem themselves by providing a list of the spells at the beginning of the book in one column and they're generic names in another.
Yeah, but the renaming is a bit stupid especially for the Greyhawk spells since any book published that isn't set in a specific world is supposed to be set in Greyhawk by default.
I'm sure it might be to some, I just don't care. I'm more into the usefulness of the book, since I don't have some of the expansions. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 02:13:40
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery_Man
This book is well done. The best part about it are the spell descriptions, very cool. And as far as the generic renaming goes it's not much of a problem (at least for me) and they do redeem themselves by providing a list of the spells at the beginning of the book in one column and they're generic names in another.
Yeah, but the renaming is a bit stupid especially for the Greyhawk spells since any book published that isn't set in a specific world is supposed to be set in Greyhawk by default. |
| Mystery_Man |
Posted - 05 Jan 2006 : 17:58:58
This book is well done. The best part about it are the spell descriptions, very cool. And as far as the generic renaming goes it's not much of a problem (at least for me) and they do redeem themselves by providing a list of the spells at the beginning of the book in one column and they're generic names in another. |
| Kes_Alanadel |
Posted - 09 Dec 2005 : 15:51:07
I don't know off hand, but I'll try to get Tifus to figure it out, and let you know |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 09 Dec 2005 : 00:20:52
Any good bardic spells in there that I should look up in the old Dragons i've scrounged together? |
| Kes_Alanadel |
Posted - 08 Dec 2005 : 22:25:24
Sorry as well Alaundo. I think it will be used alot in our campaigns, especially by a bard we have (no, not Ragnar ) that is using quite a few out of the Dragon magazines. It will help the magazines stay together better as well.
~Kes |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 08 Dec 2005 : 17:27:33
Sorry, Big Al!
I really enjoy the descriptors in the spells. Where usually I make up the description on the spot, sometimes the creative part of my mind fails miserably! I do feel bad that they neutered a lot of the spells, but since we all know them so well, it's not hard to figure out which they are.
C-Fb |
| Alaundo |
Posted - 08 Dec 2005 : 16:58:34
Well met
Ahem, let us please get back to discussing the Spell Compendium. Thank ye. A tome which certainly intrigues me as to its usefulness. I'll certainly be purchasing this tome, if only for the interest in seeing how well done and creative the "read aloud" text is. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 07 Dec 2005 : 06:31:30
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I'll get it simply for the utility factor of having the latest versions of all the spells in one, nice, neat place. Mind you, the de-Realmsification (and de-Greyhawking) of all the names is really off-putting.
-- George Krashos
Very much so, I will get it, but most likely not til after X-mas, I need to get things for everyone else first.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Dec 2005 : 05:41:57
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I'll get it simply for the utility factor of having the latest versions of all the spells in one, nice, neat place.
That's pretty much my thinking on this as well.
I'm looking at it more as a handy reference resource to have on my desktop, when and if I need to refer to a particular spell quickly -- much like my quick reference book for the C++ language that I also have sitting here .
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 07 Dec 2005 : 05:00:54
Yeah, I don't mind one bit if Mordenkainen wrote a spell . . . sure Khelbun could kick his tail with one staff tied behind his back, but the old balance freak has written a few useful spells in his day . . . |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 07 Dec 2005 : 04:52:12
I'll get it simply for the utility factor of having the latest versions of all the spells in one, nice, neat place. Mind you, the de-Realmsification (and de-Greyhawking) of all the names is really off-putting.
-- George Krashos
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 11:51:32
quote:
Originally posted by martynq
The comments above seem far more positive about this product than I was expecting. It seemed to me that it was mainly reprints (and corrections) of stuff that I already have all the original source material for. Is it still worth getting?
Martyn
As I've said above, I'm mainly getting it to cut down on the amount of books in my bag. The spells from Dragon and stuff online is a bonus, too-up to you. |
| martynq |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 11:36:14
The comments above seem far more positive about this product than I was expecting. It seemed to me that it was mainly reprints (and corrections) of stuff that I already have all the original source material for. Is it still worth getting?
Martyn |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 02:27:38
ROTFL... yeah, marriage does do that to you!!
C-Fb |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 01:30:49
I just woke up and felt like an older knight . . .
|
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 00:44:59
Hey, that's a good idea, KEJR. I was wondering a way to limit my players from gorging themselves on all the crunch that has come out. And if you've ever had technical players, you know what I mean!
C-Fb
P.s. - KEJR, what's up with the Avatar change? |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 19:53:03
When I initially had heard that the book would have the source for the spell listed, I was hoping that that would be listed as part of each spells entry, not just having a list at the end of the book that says all of the sources that were used. If there had been a line in each of the spells saying where the spell came from, some of the FR spells would have been called out.
Why am I concerned about this? Becuase the book did just what I was hoping it wouldn't. By neutering the spells and not specifically calling out the sources, we now have a bunch of spells restricted as "Initiate" spells mixed in with everything else. Granted, you can still look at the front of the book to see the renamed spells, but it seems to make everything more complicated.
I know, you may not like initiate feats, but I like the idea that some things are held back for followers of certain gods that receive special training.
Oh, as to some of the earilier concern about player's getting their hands on this and wanting all sorts of divine spells, in my campaign, if you are a divine caster, you have been taught how to pray for the spells in the PH, but anything that comes out later (Miniatures Handbook, FR sourcebooks, Complete Divine, etc.) you have to find someone that has already learned how to pray for that clerical spell in order to learn how to pray for it yourself, though once you are tutored, there is no failure chance as there is with arcane spells, and no limit, nor requirment to keep the prayer listed in a "prayer book,"
|
| Kes_Alanadel |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 18:13:10
Okay, I finally got a chance to look through it, and it's a pretty cool book. The artwork is really nice, and there are alot of really nice spells in it, but like Tifus said, some of the spell entries have errors in them.
The one thing that I really didn't like, is that they didn't give any suggestions with the new Domains for Gods that could grant them. I guess with their push for generics (is this a word ), they felt they shouldn't add that, but it will make some extra work for the DM if they want to add those Domains. I don't see how it would have hurt for them to add a couple of lines that were 'In FR, these gods would have these domains...... In Eberron, these gods,' etc.
|
| Tifus Artwin |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 14:59:59
From what Ive read and looked over, they made all of the spells as Generic as possable, Im guessing so that any spell from the Compendium can be added to any existing campaign with no difficult explinations "Yes I know Mordenkainen is from Grey-Hawk, but he just got in from there and has a few spells he wants to share".
As for the rest of the book, so far Ive only noted a few discrepancys(sp?) such as the Sarcophagus of Stone spell pg180. Theres seems to be a major lacking of information on that spell, such as spell lvl, who can and cannt cast it, ect. and unlike other spells, (such as Iron Bones and Stone Bones) it doesnt say that it acts as another spell exept where noted.
Other then that, Id make sure that any DM gets this book, but think it over before putting it in the hands of PC's. Its not that the spells are overpowered, its that alot of them are weak for there levels, but there versatility balances that out and could give a DM a headache trying to challenge a druid PC with the Tsunami spell avalable.
And Three-Dragon Ante is a fun game, its just going to take about 3 or 4 times playing to really get used to all of its quirks. |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 14:58:16
I've picked the book up and it's fairly cool. I don't like the generic names, but I know the spells well enough that I just refer to them by their proper names, anyway. I shouldn't have spent the $40, as like Warlockco said, I should have spent it on other things (like more Xbox 360 games). Overall, it's a neat book to have with decent artwork. And like Arivia said, it will lighten the load immensely.
C-Fb |
| Arivia |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 11:48:59
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Anyone learn why they went generic? I couldn't find an explanation in the Spell Compendium itself, and I'm certain it's not for Cosmology reasons.
J. Grenemyer
No clue if it was for Cosmology reasons, then they should have done it with the PHB then. The only source that had generic names was the SRDs.
No, as those were GH-specific, and 3e uses GH as the basis in the core rulebooks, remember? Hence why it's so styming why they're removing the Mordenkainen's lines from some of the spells in the Spell Compendium... |
|
|
