Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kjenks 02-08-07, 02:36 PM	Like many of you, I'm going through the document to figure out what changed. Here's what changed in the Closed Spells access rules. This section combines the 596 NPC Only and Restricted sections. It adds the following spells to the Closed list: Alter Self (PH) Arcane Turmoil (CM) Bite of the Werebear (SpC) Bite of the Wereboar (SpC) Bite of the Wererat (SpC) Bite of the Weretiger (SpC) Bite of the Werewolf (SpC) Consumptive Field (SpC) Consumptive Field, Greater (SpC) Crystalline Memories (CM) Divine Insight (SpC) † Last Breath (SpC) Polymorph (PH) Polymorph Any Object (PH) Ray of Stupidity (SpC) Reaving Aura (CM) Shapechange (PH) Surge of Malevolence (HH) Tainted Fury (HH) Touch of Taint (HH) Touchstone (Sa) Veteran Knowledge (HB) Water Adaptation (Sto) Whispered Secrets (RD) Willing Deformity (HH) Winged Warrior (RW)* Wingover (MM)* -- but that's a mistake because Wingover is a feat, not a spell
Britt 02-08-07, 02:38 PM	There were several feats that somehow crept onto that list. I've removed them; thanks.
kjenks 02-09-07, 03:09 PM	Cool. I see these: Surge of Malevolence, Touch of Taint, Tainted Fury, Willing Deformity, Touchstone, Veteran Knowledge, Water Adaptation, Whispered Secrets, Winged Warrior, Wingover. No biggie. It was probably just a copy/paste error.
Julian_Tempest 02-11-07, 01:09 AM	Why are Alter Self, Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object, and Shapechange being Closed? Yeah, s people do some pretty broken things with these spells, probably even more so than I realize, but still. I want to hear the most broken things you've seen done with these spells to justify banning them. The way I see it, role playing is about pretending to be something you aren't in a world that doesn't exist doing things you could never do in real life. To me, spells like this that allow you to change what you are in game are the embodiment of this principle. Banning them closes off what I consider to be a key aspect of the game. Also, I find myself wondering what the point is of playing a Wizard anymore. Given I've never played a Wizard (well, I have one now who was going to become a Transmutation specialist, but it looks like his concept dies with CY597), but what other role does a Wizard really have anymore in combat-heavy LG besides just blowing stuff up (to which a Warmage is far better suited anyway)? Evokers and Transmuters are the most combat effective roles a Wizard can play from what I can tell. Illusionists are funny, yeah, but not really combat effective. Is there something I'm not seeing?
rockondon 02-11-07, 02:31 AM	I want to hear the most broken things you've seen done with these spells to justify banning them. allow me to paraphrase someone's post from another thread. My own Wizard constantly has Contingency active, keyed to cast Polymorph taking the form War Troll (which I have access to) when he shouts the phrase "You will die!" He has Quickened Enlarge Person memorized, so he can keep his equipment, mainly including his longsword, which he casts Extended Greater Magic Weapon on to make +3. The sorcerer in the above example isn't keeping any equipment. He also has Tenser's Transformation memorized, because I'm sorry, but even War Troll is not going to save a BAB of +5. If I wish, he can cast Quickened Enlarge Person, shout "You will die," then cast Tenser's Transformation, click his Boots of Speed, move into position and draw his longsword. His full-attack sequence becomes +26/+26/+21/+16, bite at +24, doing 2d6+21 damage, 1d8+12 on the bite. Each hit requires a DC 27 Fort save to resist being dazed for one round. His AC becomes 35, and he has 174 hp, plus False Life. Assuming all those attacks hit, that's 1d8+8d6+96, averages to 122 points/round.That's one way to use polymorph. Everyone uses alter self to become a troglodyte - oops I meant they cast alter self to get +6 natural armor and combined with mage armor, a naked wizard can easily have an AC better than the souped up full plate mail wearing tin can beside him. People aren't casting these spells for the spirit of the game, for the atmosphere, for the flavor, the way they were intended. They cast these spells and become better fighters than the fighters themselves. They cast these spells and chuckle at the ones who wasted so much money on their magical mithral full plate and still have a lower AC.
Julian_Tempest 02-11-07, 12:17 PM	My first inclined response is that Wizards are supposed to be the scariest PCs in the game at high level. A level 16 Fighter walking in on a ticked off level 12 Wizard should be afraid. The downside of the Wizard is that he's lucky to have double-digit HP by 3rd level. A low-level Wizard is as fragile as rice paper. A strong wind or a swift kick to his junk is enough to knock unconscious. But then I realize that Alter Self is available at 3rd level. That does sound a bit early to be reaping that kind of reward. Maybe you just shouldn't be able to polymorph into something with more Hit Dice than you? I also realize that Living Greyhawk (and DnD in general) is a community-oriented game. The Wizard trumping the Fighter like that may be mechanically effective, but it isn't very social. So, the question I have on this is how often have you seen the melee PCs feel useless or otherwise indignant at the Wizard for being able to pull this off? If the other PCs don't mind and even like the additional melee support that the Wizard now lends, then there's no social alienation and thus no problem. Though I do assert that the Wizard who uses his magic just to become a better melee combatant is lame.
jstorrie 02-11-07, 12:31 PM	Julian, that's mostly a 2e (and earlier) artifact. In 3.5, the classes are supposed to be balanced. A Fighter 16 should (theoretically) be as unthreatened by a Wizard 12 as by a Fighter 12. I know this doesn't exactly work out in practice, but the Wizard is no longer designed specifically to be less powerful at lower levels and more powerful at higher levels.
Julian_Tempest 02-11-07, 12:59 PM	Julian, that's mostly a 2e (and earlier) artifact. In 3.5, the classes are supposed to be balanced. A Fighter 16 should (theoretically) be as unthreatened by a Wizard 12 as by a Fighter 12. That does make sense. If they tried to balance things out from 2nd Ed., I probably just didn't notice. I know this doesn't exactly work out in practice, but the Wizard is no longer designed specifically to be less powerful at lower levels and more powerful at higher levels. Yeah, that's part of the problem. I don't think they succeeded very well at making low-level Wizards as threatening as low-level Fighters. Magic Missile is hardly as threatening as as a longsword.
GreatSiron 02-11-07, 01:31 PM	I don't think they succeeded very well at making low-level Wizards as threatening as low-level Fighters. Magic Missile is hardly as threatening as as a longsword. That's why you don't use magic missle. You use color spray, or cause fear, or even charm person. Wizards at lower lvl are better for taking control of a fight by removing combantants entirely.
solbergb 02-11-07, 01:38 PM	Or you use the mighty 25gp scrolls of things like enlarge person, obscuring mist, magic weapon, etc. Things that usually do a lot more to turn a fight around than magic missile, and don't require the bad guy to roll poorly on a save. Magic missile has its place too in the baby levels. Big scary monsters can linger at one hitpont for round after round while the fighters whiff. Guaranteed damage has its place. But it is a finisher. It isn't something a wizard should open a fight with, and it should be on a scroll, not in his head in level 1-2, because it doesn't benefit from higher attributes.
keenspotter 02-11-07, 01:51 PM	People aren't casting these spells for the spirit of the game, for the atmosphere, for the flavor, the way they were intended. They cast these spells and become better fighters than the fighters themselves. They cast these spells and chuckle at the ones who wasted so much money on their magical mithral full plate and still have a lower AC. The "spirit of the game" is the most misused slander against role-playing that has been perpetrated by the community. Generally, when people say that something is against "the spirit of the game," they mean that it is being used in the most effective possible manner, and one which happens to offend their personal sense of the entirely subjective "intent" of a rule. Frankly, this is a manner of role-playing elitism. Characters in LG live an almost completely martial lifestyle, and to that end many of them use their spells and abilities in manners which experience tells them will be effective. Those who somehow feel that this is not consistent with a generally realistic view of the game ignore the fact that people in the real world, so to speak, do exactly this. One would be ridiculed, for instance, if he chose never to shift his car out of first gear because he preferred to drive slowly. Furthermore, for some regions, the martial aspect of the campaign is stressed highly (the Gran March, for example), and playing a character who uses his abilities in a sub-optimal fashion is, in fact, inconsistent with good roleplaying. Furthermore, the combination which you have called upon to (presumably) demonstrate how unbalanced the Polymorph subschool makes the wizard is questionable at best. First of all, the player in question is utilizing a Quickened Enlarge Person, which is an illegal combination, as Enlarge Person is a full-round spell. Second, the person is using the War Troll, which is a form only granted by AR access. Without this form, the Polymorph spell is much more mitigated, and in fact the existence of the War Troll was the reason why Polymorph was originally restricted to MM1 creatures by the LGCS. The fact that some regions have chosen to ignore this common-sensical move and re-insert an overpowered combination into the game is certainly no basis for eliminating an entire subschool. Finally, with the exception of the very high-level Polymorph Any Object, every spell in this school has a very short duration, which effectively mitigates the complaints of those who say that wizards somehow "trump" fighters in any way. This is especially laughable when one considers how much MORE effective it is to cast such spells on a fighter than on the wizard himself, and in fact I have no doubt that if it were possible to cast Alter Self on others, fighters would never allow a wizard to cast it on himself. No combination of spells will ever make a wizard superior in melee combat to a fighter of equal level and optimization. Removing these spells from LG is a nonsensical, unjustified modification that does nothing to enhance the "spirit of the game." In fact, by further restricting spells and abilities from the most basic resource, Core Rulebook 1, this modification could just as justifiably be said to separate LG even moreso from the "spirit of the game." On an inconsequential note, it is also inconsistent with the addition of the feat "Minor Shapechange" to the Open list, since the entire Polymorph subschool (which is a prerequisite) has been eliminated. However, as history has demonstrated many times that the purpose of the Draft Review is solely to identify gross errors and mistakes of spelling and grammar, I have every confidence that no amount of feedback will change the Circle's mind on this matter. The fact that it appears in the Draft means that they have already made up their minds to carry through with this restriction for the next game year.
rockondon 02-11-07, 04:49 PM	The "spirit of the game" is the most misused slander against role-playing that has been perpetrated by the community. Generally, when people say that something is against "the spirit of the game," they mean that it is being used in the most effective possible manner, and one which happens to offend their personal sense of the entirely subjective "intent" of a rule. I agree. Usually when people talk about the spirit of the game they're actually talking about the spirit of their game, the ill-conceived notions and rules that exist only within the confines of their own minds that they feel all players should abide by. Anyone who doesn't follow their rules and commits the crime of building characters well or uses spells intelligently is often considered a bad role-player, a min/max junky, an optimising monkey, etc. What I was trying to say before was that people cast these spells for the benefits they provide, not for the fun of experiencing an alternate form. I don't play arcane casters but if I did, alter self would be my "barkskin" buff and my familiar would probably be some polymorphed monstrosity that makes GMs groan. If one really wanted to keep these spells open, it would likely take some big rules changes that greatly limit the physical benefits of taking the new form.
keenspotter 02-11-07, 05:03 PM	If one really wanted to keep these spells open, it would likely take some big rules changes that greatly limit the physical benefits of taking the new form. I disagree. The old rules were fine. MM1 forms are not broken for Polymorph, and the Troglodyte is not broken for wizards, it's just very useful.
wooti 02-11-07, 05:32 PM	I have a few points: 1) The reason that the circle removed polymorph may not been because of its power, Wizards are moving away from polymorph and everything they are now publishing assumes it doesn't exist. Thus the circle is just keeping in line with wizards. 2) I do how wish they would open up some of the "...shape" or "form or..." spells to replace it. I suspect if they don't I'll see several in the next year's ARs (which of course I'll play with my other character). 3) I believe that wizards at high levels are more power than fighters. The fighter only keep up with wizards by getting buffs off them (and other spell caster types) polymorph was one of the greatest buffs. Even though I had troubles getting fighter types to let me polymorph them removing polymorph hurts fighters. (It hurts my gish too, but I'll have to live with just my quickened true strike power attacks, well once I level away).
rockondon 02-11-07, 05:35 PM	I disagree. The old rules were fine. MM1 forms are not broken for Polymorph, and the Troglodyte is not broken for wizards, it's just very useful. considering that it has hit the closed list, it would seem not everyone agrees with you. Both are powerful, and the full effects of polymorph is often confusing and time-consuming to determine. These are the issues you would want to address if you want to get these spells on the open list.
Mommy was an Orc 02-11-07, 05:54 PM	First of all, the player in question is utilizing a Quickened Enlarge Person, which is an illegal combination, as Enlarge Person is a full-round spell. It isn't an illegal combination. Go to www.andycollins.net, click onto the rules discussion board, go to the 3rd page. There's a Quicken Spell question on there from me(apearlma) - I can't directly link to it, but he says: Why you'd apply Rapid + Quicken to, say, summon monster (when you could just apply Quicken to it and get the same effect) is beyond me.
solbergb 02-11-07, 05:59 PM	Yeah, well. Welcome to the "different authors believe different rules" thing. The author of rapid spell thought you couldn't quicken full round spells, the way it is worded. Andy thinks you can, but until he writes that opinion into a FAQ, many judges, including myself, will go by the Rapid spell text. There is a whole metaphysical concept of what a 1 round casting time is timewise relative to a full round action (eg, full attack or metamagiced spont spell) that unerlies these opinions that is way off topic for this thread. There are plenty of other examples of similar things. (why do wands of gravestrike exist? Because the author felt that spell completion items used the casting time of the spell, as suggested in the 3.0 FAQ, not "the casting time of spell or std action, whatever is larger" which is another valid interpretation of existing core rules and is spelled out by the author of Mini Handbook and I think Spell Compendium) These ambiguities are what we need the FAQ for, what we need the LGCS for and also...why Judges are allowed to rule on anything that is grey. We need a judge too, because the FAQ and LGCS and Dispel Confusion can't possibly handle all these inconsistencies, especially as more rules sources come out every month, written by authors who may or may not agree with previous authors on a given point.
keenspotter 02-11-07, 07:20 PM	It isn't an illegal combination. Go to www.andycollins.net, click onto the rules discussion board, go to the 3rd page. There's a Quicken Spell question on there from me(apearlma) - I can't directly link to it, but he says: Good reference, but it's only right in that it is a ruling by a designer which may hold weight over a judge; it has no technical merit. The Magic section indicates that a spell with a 1-round casting time requires a full-round action to cast, but its casting time is still longer than a full-round action. If it weren't, it would go off immediately.
keenspotter 02-11-07, 07:42 PM	Both are powerful, and the full effects of polymorph is often confusing and time-consuming to determine. These are the issues you would want to address if you want to get these spells on the open list. There is no objective way to address the issue of whether the Polymorph subschool is broken. This is a subjective judgment, and even though these spells are a basic part of the game, there is no objective way to demonstrate that they are balanced without peeling the entire concept of game balance like an onion. Polymorph can be time-consuming, but only to the unprepared. Most decent players who use this spell on a regular basis are prepared to do so. Ultimately, Polymorph is only marginally more complex than Summon Monster. Furthermore, the argument of complexity or adjudication cannot reasonably be applied to the entire subschool, since Alter Self is a very basic spell with well-understood consequences. A spell should not be excluded from the game because of a lowest-common-denominator judgment that rules that it is difficult to use and adjudicate. If this were the case, this Occam's Razor of simplicity should be taken to mounted combat, multiclassing, Summon spells, animal companions, and the Leadership feat. Instead, the LGCS should focus on clarifying what version of the Polymorph rules are used in LG in clear and concise language that makes it easy for players and judges to implement. On the point that Wizards is proceeding as if Polymorph did not exist, this is simply not the case. The newest books have clarified the Polymorph subschool and even added a feat and some abilities which require these spells (for example, Minor Shapechange from Complete Mage). Furthermore, a noticeable percentage of upper-CL spellcasting monsters in nearly every book still have access to this spell, and in the case of some traditional shapechanging creatures, they simply do not make sense without it. Alter Self is a basic workhorse buff that has a decent combat application, but given the short duration at low levels (and the resources required to make it "continuous" at high), it is balanced. Polymorph has been a sacred cow since 1st Edition and the interpretation from the current LGCS is perfectly serviceable and not overpowered at all if only MM1 monsters are used. Its complexity can be overcome with no more preparation than is required to create an animal companion, stat a special mount, or summon a monster. Polymorph Any Object, in its more total form of transformation, is arguably less complex than the lower level version, and as a spell of the highest level available in the game, is intended to be powerful.
Mommy was an Orc 02-11-07, 09:31 PM	Good reference, but it's only right in that it is a ruling by a designer which may hold weight over a judge; it has no technical merit. The Magic section indicates that a spell with a 1-round casting time requires a full-round action to cast, but its casting time is still longer than a full-round action. If it weren't, it would go off immediately. That's an example of 3.0 logic applied to the 3.5 game. The net result of your opinion is that there are zero spells that take a full-round action to cast and can be quickened. Now obviously, the writer of the Quicken Spell feat thinks there are some full-round actions spells that can be Quickened. They're not one round spells that have Rapid spell applied to them, as that those are standard actions. So what spells are they?
Mommy was an Orc 02-11-07, 09:42 PM	The author of rapid spell thought you couldn't quicken full round spells, the way it is worded. It is a good example of an author who didn't know the rules had changed and people who should know better believing him as an authority. There are no full round spells in 3.5. They're called one round spells. Think he checked the text in PHB for Quicken Spell when writing up his feat?
solbergb 02-11-07, 10:32 PM	I don't know but the text for a feat usually takes precedence over all other text. In any event, we remain offtopic. Barring a FAQ entry by Andy, it will continue to have table variation because the underlying assumption (is a 1 round casting spell > a full round action?) has severe table variance. The LGCS isn't going to change that. Deal with it.
Mommy was an Orc 02-12-07, 12:08 AM	I don't know but the text for a feat usually takes precedence over all other text. Right. And Quicken Spell says it works on full-round action spells. One round spells are defined as being full-round action spells. They are the only full-round action spells that can be Quickened as there are no other spells that take a full round action to cast that don't involve spontaneous metamagic. Rapid Spell actually backs this up - if there was a full round action spell that takes less than one round to cast that isn't involving metamagic, the feat doesn't define what it does to it. And to point out, Rapid Spell does not define that you need it to Quicken a one round spell. It defines that only one round spells can be both Quickened and Rapid, which can be looked at in two different ways.
solbergb 02-12-07, 12:10 AM	And because it can be looked at in two ways, it will be. Table variation. Fact of life. When you get into metaphysical timing issues of 1 round casting time vs the full round action, it is a religious discussion, not a logical one. Getting back on topic - has anyone but me noticed what polymorph subschool spells do to you now? They strip you of ALL class abilities. Spellcasting, maybe even BAB and Saves too, I can't recall. BAB and not saves perhaps. So if we get trollform or whatever, you are essentially becoming a MM troll, all the way down to exactly the same attack mods and possibly the same saves. Nobody would want alter self or polymorph under those conditions. The new single form spells take a few steps to mitigate the downside, such as trollform granting temp hitpoints to mitigate the +10 constitution modifier that your'e not getting. But in general these forms are like being under a baleful polymorph where you've failed the will save.
copper_wyrmling 02-12-07, 12:20 AM	They are the only full-round action spells that can be Quickened as there are no other spells that take a full round action to cast that don't involve spontaneous metamagic. Actually... I think this is now incorrect, with the introduction of the PH2. Have a look at the Channelled spells: they have a "one full-round action" casting time option. Personally I think the wording in Quicken was to allow for full-round action spells in later publications, but that may be ascribing too much foresight to the designers. And yes Brad, the new polymorph spells pretty much replace you with the MM creature. They might be useful cast on your familiar?
solbergb 02-12-07, 12:44 AM	Ah yeah, that's a good use for them. Except for the rather fragile familiar hitpoints, but that's what empowerd false life is for.
keenspotter 02-12-07, 10:53 AM	Ah yeah, that's a good use for them. Except for the rather fragile familiar hitpoints, but that's what empowerd false life is for. Unless you have an improved familiar, the size restriction on Polymorph from the current LGCS is fairly strict for a familiar.
Mommy was an Orc 02-12-07, 12:04 PM	Personally I think the wording in Quicken was to allow for full-round action spells in later publications, but that may be ascribing too much foresight to the designers. Especially as the lead designer on 3.5 thinks that position is bizarre. The Rapid Spell designer clearly thinks you can Quicken a one round spell. One of the problems with the opposing view is that they don't actually look at what happens if they are correct. Suppose you can't Quicken one round spells... Why does the writer of Rapid Spell need to tell you that you can only Rapid and Quicken a one round spell, but not others? If you can't Quicken a one round spell, you can't Quicken a three round spell that's been made Rapid - because it is a one round spell. There's no reason for the word only to be in there - it should be self-evident.
JamesMaissen 02-12-07, 12:24 PM	There's no reason for the word only to be in there - it should be self-evident. To each side their side is self-evident. That a 1 round casting takes more than the time a full round action spell takes (such as spontaneous metamagic'd spells) is also self-evident (to me). Likewise if it wanted to include 1 round casting time spells it should have said 'a spell whose casting time is more than 1 round cannot be quickened' rather than '1 full-round action'. Part of the problem is the way terms are named in D&D. It's not as bad as 'level' but it is confusing. It was confusing when 3.0 first came out and many believed that a spontaneous metamagic'd spell took as long to cast as a 1 round casting time spell and thus came into effect in the subsequent round. But the real point is that both arguements have been heard by the proponents of the other viewpoint without changing either's beliefs in what is correct and what is not. -James
Mommy was an Orc 02-12-07, 03:48 PM	To each side their side is self-evident. I'm not saying my position is self-evident. I'm saying that if your position is correct, there is no reason for the special. If one round spells can't be normally Quickened, then multiple round spells with Rapid spell can't be Quickened either because they're one round spells. That should be self-evident if your rule position is correct. That he then uses the word only logically means he's trying to prevent some other spell from being potentially Quickened through the use of the Rapid feat. The only other choices are spells with significantly longer casting times than one round. But if my position is correct, there is most definitely a spell which could potentially be quickened - multiple round spells that now only take one round to cast. He should also address what happens when you use the Rapid feat on a full-round action spell that does not take a round to cast if he thinks that category of spells exist. He doesn't. You cannot use Rapid spell on anything less than a one round spell despite the potential uses of some imaginary spell with a standard action instead of a full round action. In fact, if you applied the Rapid Spell feat to a full round action spell that doesn't take one round to cast and isn't a metamagic spell, according to the Special, you can no longer Quicken it - because it isn't a one round spell.
keenspotter 02-13-07, 08:31 AM	I'm not saying my position is self-evident. Hmm .... but .... There's no reason for the word only to be in there - it should be self-evident. How about that? If at all possible, let's stay on topic.
Mommy was an Orc 02-13-07, 09:33 AM	Hmm .... but .... How about that? If your position is correct, then there's no reason for the special to exist. That doesn't make my position self-evident. It means that your position is logically inconsistent with itself.