Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Merlion 03-11-04, 01:31 AM	I usualy dont put this many spells in one thread, but thease are special. Sort of a fusion of the whole prismatic thing with Monte Cook's Call of Various Gems spells from the Book of Hallowed Might 2. Theres one more left to be done...the one thats for the Indigo in the Prismatic spells...but I am having trouble thinking up a gem for it, or how to do its effects...anyway, here they are. Diamond Blast Evocation (Force) Level: Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V, S, F Casting time: 1 standard action Range: 60 ft Area: Cone-shaped burst Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes This spell causes the focus (a diamond worth at least 1,000 gold pieces) to emit a powerful blast of force. The blast deals 1d4 points of damage per caster level, to a maximum of 20d4. Focus: the diamond Emerald Blast Conjuration (Creation) Level: Mys 7, Sor/Wiz 6 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 60 ft Area: Cone-shaped burst Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: See Text Spell Resistance: Yes Casting this spell causes the focus (an emerald worth at least 1,000 gold pieces) to emit a blast of emerald energy which introduces a deadly poison into the system of each living creature in the area. The poison deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage initially, and 2d6 points of Constitution damage 1 minute later. A successful Fortitude save halves each instance of damage. Focus: The emerald Ruby Blast Evocation (Fire) Level: Sor/Wiz 6 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 60 ft Area: Cone-shaped burst Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Reflex half Spell Resistance: Yes Casting this spell causes the focus (a ruby worth at least 1,000 gold pieces) to emit a powerful blast of flame. This blast deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level, to a maximum of 15d6. Creatures in the area may make a Reflex save for half damage. Additionally, any who fail their save are considered fatigued for 1d3 rounds due to the intense heat. Unlike normal fatigue, this effect ends entirely when the duration elapses. Topaz Blast Evocation (Electricity) Level: Sor/Wiz 7 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 60 ft Area: Cone-shaped burst Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Reflex half Spell Resistance: Yes Casting this spell causes the focus (a topaz worth at least 1,000 gold pieces) to emit a blast of electricity. The blast deals 1d6 points of damage, to a maximum of 20d6. Creatures in the area may attempt a Reflex save for half damage. Additionally, those failing their saves are dazed for 1d3 rounds. Focus: the topaz Opal Blast Conjuration (Creation) (Acid) Level: Sor/Wiz 6 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 60 ft Area: Cone-shaped burst Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No Casting this spell causes the focus (a fire opal worth at least 1,000 gold pieces) to emit a spray of acid. This acid deals 3d6 damage initially, and another 3d6 damage each round for the following 4 rounds. Each round at the beginning of a creatures turn they may attempt to remove the acid by immersing themselves in water, or dousing themselves with alcohol or another solvent (a skin of wine will do). This requires at least a full round action. Focus: the opal Sapphire Blast Evocation Level: Mys 5, Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 60 ft Area: Cone-shaped burst Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Fortitude Partial Spell Resistance: Yes Casting this spell causes the focus ( a sapphire worth at least 1,000 gold pieces) to emit a flash of blue energy. All creatures in the area must make a Fortitude save or be stunned for 1d6+1 rounds. Success indicates the subject is only slowed for 1d3 rounds. A creature who’s current hit points exceed 150 is not effected by this spell. Focus: The sapphire Iolite Blast Enchantment (Compulsion) (Mind affecting) Level: Mys 8, Sor/Wiz 8 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 60 ft Area: Cone-shaped burst Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes Casting this spell causes the focus (an iolite worth at least 1,000 gold pieces) to emit a blast of violet light. All living creatures within the area become Confused for 2d6 rounds. Creatures who have more Hit Dice than you have caster levels are not affected. Focus: the Iolite Amethyst Blast Conjuration (Teleportation) Level: Mys 7, Sor/Wiz 6 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 60 ft Area: Cone-shaped burst Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will Negates Spell Resistance: Yes Casting this spell causes the focus (an amethyst worth at least 1,000 gold pieces) to emit a burst of violet light. Any creature caught in the blast that fails its Will save is teleported out to Long range in a random direction 1d4 Direction 1 North 2 South 3 East 4 West The subject may not arrive within a solid object, but needn’t arrive with solid ground beneath them. Focus: the amethyst
PhaedrusXY 03-11-04, 02:09 AM	I think the levels are off on most of these. I'd place them as follows: Diamond Blast- 6th at most Emerald Blast- not bad as-is, but I think it could be lowered a level. Ruby Blast- about right Sapphire Blast- this is pretty powerful even without adding that the targets are stunned on a successful save. As is, it is much too powerful, IMO. An area affect that is stunned for 1d4 rounds with no save? Topaz Blast- I like Chain Lightning better. I'd lower this one a level. Opal Blast-I'd say 4th level on this one. Amethyst Blast- Erm... no Save on an area Confusion? That is really powerful. Granted, by the time casters get access to it, they also get access to Mind Blank. But still... Is there anything that compares to this? I can't think of any area affect spells with no save that cause something this nasty... but maybe I'm just tired. I guess you can tell that I'm not a big fan of area affect spells with no save that totally screw the targets over for multiple rounds...
cwslyclgh 03-11-04, 03:09 AM	Diamond Blast is way underpowered for a 9th level spell... I would say more around the 6th level range Emerald Blast nice spell, but I think it could be lowered to 5th level, compare to cloudkill another area affect spell that "poisons" creatures Ruby Blast I see nothing wrong with this spell,although I might make mention that creatures with out eyes are not blinded or something. Sapphire Blast way over powered. compare to the 8th level spell Power Word Stun this spell is much better then PWS (has an area affect, can affect creatuires with more then 150 hp), and thus should be a 9th level spell Topaz Blast should be 6th level like Ruby Blast, otherwise is an excelent spell. Opal Blast with a maximum damage of 12d6 I would make this a 5th level spell at most, in fact i would probably make it 4th level and provide some proviso for avioding the secondary damage (such as taking a full round action to wash it off with a full skin of wine or some such). Amethyst Blast seems a little overpowered to me with no save. hope that helps :)
dantedarkstar 03-11-04, 07:10 AM	And here we clash again in a battle between power and balance. Diamond Blast I read it and thought 7th level would be fine, unless I got to Save part. No save ? Area spell, no save, force damage = no defense at all (except for SR). This is NOT right. With save, it's probably 7th level, without, it's beyond 9th level. Meteor Swarm at least gives a chance, and even not so high resistance (30 :D ) nullifies it almost completely. This one needs save or other means of defense, or some reduction in power. (for example straight 10d6 damage). Emerald Blast This one looks fine. No complains. Ruby Blast I am against using d8's in spells, since they are usually cheap excuse to go beyond damage caps, which are balanced with d6's in mind. This one looks almost fine. I don't know what flames have to do with blinding though. Completely no idea. If you kill that part, the spell is OK I guess (suboptimal area and most commonly resisted element balance out the die increase IMHO). Sapphire Blast This one is outright overpowered. 1d4 rounds of stun on succesful save ? So you auto-stun loads of people ? Power Word Stun, if we lower it 1 level, because it has no somatic component, so it's like stilled spell, is 7th level spell, which is mind-affecting, affects one target and stuns for that 1d4 rounds only people with 150hp or less. Yours is 2 levels lower, affect any hp creature, area and not mind-affecting. Comparision show your spell grossly overpowered. I suggest stunning for 1d4 rounds on failed save and no stun on succesful. Then, it's rather balanced. Topas Blast As Ruby Blast... well, almost. If you kill dazing (I think lightning stuns, not dazes, since daze is mind status, not the body shock), this would be OK. On the other hand, 7th level spells are supposed to have cap at 20 die, not 15. Lower it to level 6th then, or raise to 8th and put 20 die cap. Opal Blast Hmm... multitarget melf's acid arrow, but doesn't require even attack roll. 15d6 total damage... only acid resistance can save you... Hard to say. It looks quite fine, except it's no save, no SR spell. On the other hand it deals damage over time. But as I look at Acid Fog, it deals 2d6, but you can get out of it to stop taking damage. But it's quite hard considering solid aspect of that fog. But still looks too powerful without need to hit and no save. Perhaps Reflex to halve damage ? (at casting time and in all following rounds). Amethyst Blast No. Spells without save cannot operate regardless of target's power level (and most status attacks DO), so it's just big no. And it can't be dispelled, because the spell is instantenous. Biig <b><red>NO</red></b>. Think up something else, or allow some inherent defenses to work. Or reduce greatly confusion duration. Look at Scintillating Pattern, which is also mind-affecting area attack of 8th level, with confusion effect. You can't affect more than your CL in HD. And duration is far less than 1/round (if we consider no concentrating).
Merlion 03-11-04, 09:26 AM	With save, it's probably 7th level, without, it's beyond 9th level I disgaree. Its damage is almost pathetic for a 9th level spell. Even though theres no save, the maximum damage it can do is 80...and the average will be more like 40. This one needs save or other means of defense, or some reduction in power. (for example straight 10d6 damage). 10d6 for a 9th level spell? Even force? I dont think so I don't know what flames have to do with blinding though well, for one thing intense flames can produce equally intense, bright light. Comparision show your spell grossly overpowered I think thats a slight overstatement. I had forgotten about Power Word: Stun tho...although I also think people make slightly to big a deal about stuns. I suggest stunning for 1d4 rounds on failed save and no stun on succesful I'm thinking maybe 1d4+1 on failure, and 1 round on a success...or maybe negation but i really hate all or nothing spells. dazing (I think lightning stuns, not dazes, since daze is mind status, not the body shock Not neccsarily. and I already have one that stuns. On the other hand, 7th level spells are supposed to have cap at 20 die, not 15. Lower it to level 6th then, or raise to 8th and put 20 die cap. why? But still looks too powerful without need to hit and no save it still does only a maximum of 15d6 damage, and it does it over time. I also need to add a proviso for the fact that you can attempt to get the acid off and stop the damage No. Spells without save cannot operate regardless of target's power level (and most status attacks DO), so it's just big no. why is this exactly? or allow some inherent defenses to work well, as a mind affecting effect a number of things are already immune to it. You can't affect more than your CL in HD. And duration is far less than 1/round I may shorten the duration
Merlion 03-11-04, 09:34 AM	Diamond Blast is way underpowered for a 9th level spell... I would say more around the 6th level range Did you notice the whole no saving throw thing? However even so I think it may need a little something else... Emerald Blast nice spell, but I think it could be lowered to 5th level, compare to cloudkill another area affect spell that "poisons" creatures Well, this spell has no hit die limitations, and does actual ability damage which takes time or magic to repair. Sapphire Blast way over powered. compare to the 8th level spell Power Word Stun this spell is much better then PWS (has an area affect, can affect creatuires with more then 150 hp), and thus should be a 9th level spell No, it isnt really all that much better accept that it effects multiple targets. I will probably change it to 1d4+1 rounds stun on a failed save and 1 round on a success. Topaz Blast should be 6th level like Ruby Blast, otherwise is an excelent spell Hmm perhaps I should raise the die cap to 20 Opal Blast with a maximum damage of 12d6 I would make this a 5th level spell at most, in fact i would probably make it 4th level and provide some proviso for avioding the secondary damage (such as taking a full round action to wash it off with a full skin of wine or some such). The maximum is 15, and it effects a wide area, so I think the level is apropriate. But I do need to add something about removing the acid. Amethyst Blast seems a little overpowered to me with no save. I will probably alter the duration.
Merlion 03-11-04, 09:41 AM	Diamond Blast- 6th at most you did note that it doesnt have a save? But I do think it might need something... Emerald Blast- not bad as-is, but I think it could be lowered a level. I'm pretty sure its more powerful than Cloudkill when it comes down to it. It can still kill things outright, has no hit die limitations, and does lasting ability damage of the worst kind. Sapphire Blast- this is pretty powerful even without adding that the targets are stunned on a successful save. As is, it is much too powerful, IMO. An area affect that is stunned for 1d4 rounds with no save? I still say people make to big a deal about stunning but i will probably scale this back abit, since it does effect a large area. Topaz Blast- I like Chain Lightning better. I'd lower this one a level I think I will increase the die cap. Opal Blast-I'd say 4th level on this one See above post. actualy, i already have a spell thats very similiar to this one, but its 4th level and only effects a single target. Is there anything that compares to this? well, its just like Confusion accept with a bigger area and no save...and 4 levels higher, with a 1k gp focus. I can't think of any area affect spells with no save that cause something this nasty... but maybe I'm just tired. There arent any, but thats never stopped me before :-) I guess you can tell that I'm not a big fan of area affect spells with no save that totally screw the targets over for multiple rounds and I dont like spells that have a goodly chance of failing all together and wasting your spell slot, especialy since save DCs have been reduced in 3.5. However, I will probably alter the duration of this spell.
Merlion 03-11-04, 11:15 AM	I changed Amethyst to Iolite. I'm told Iolite is amn indigo gemstone, and I forgot Confusion is the indigo effect, violet/amethyst is the planeshifting/teleporting one.
cwslyclgh 03-11-04, 12:17 PM	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerald Blast nice spell, but I think it could be lowered to 5th level, compare to cloudkill another area affect spell that "poisons" creatures -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, this spell has no hit die limitations, and does actual ability damage which takes time or magic to repair. actually read cloudkill now... it has HD limitations only on the autokill function, anything over the HD limit takes 1d4 points of constitution damage per round that they are in the cloud.
Merlion 03-11-04, 12:59 PM	Hmmmm
dantedarkstar 03-11-04, 01:13 PM	Diamond Blast If it wasn't irresistible force damage, I would agree this is OK for 9th level. However, as it IS unresistible damage that strikes even ethereal without problems, it is not really beyond 9th level. It's just wrong. Any spell should allow some kind of defense. Otherwise it's granted there IS an abuse to it. I think it would be rather solid spell if it dealt 1d6/level (max.25d6) and allowed regular reflex for half. Heck, it would be terribly powerful spell anyway. Ruby Blast Err... right. I would rather expect thermal shock long before blindness. But as I said, with both blindness and d8, it's too powerful anyway. Sapphire Blast Uurgh. Do you not understand that taking ANYONE out of action WITHOUT save or other defense is BROKEN. The change indeed reduced the spell's power. It's still broken. "Oh wee, I just dazed 10 Tarrasques, can you chop him to pieces ? I'll recast the spell few times in the meantime." If you hate all-or-nothing spells, then just don't touch disabling status spells. Opal Blast Why I say it's still too powerful ? Because it's guaranteed damage. No defense. Getting acid off ? Right, in other words enemy not only takes damage, but gives you a free turn to blast him into oblivion. This is no defense spell (except acid resistance). And spell should allow INHERENT defenses to work, or be manageable by potential target. Acid resistance is inherent to very few, and 15d6 damage is hardly manageable at level 12 (for example). Generally saving throw is inherent. Iolite Blast (ex. Amethyst) Why disabling spells can't work regardless of target's power ? Because it's NOT balanced for 15th level caster to automatically confuse 10 red wyrms, regardless of how cool it sounds. Amethyst Blast (new) This one is rather OK, althrough could get abusive in many situations. Thankfully, there is that saving throw, which balances this one out. What if you are in place where there is no "north" ? When are you flying ? Except the direction choosing (maybe just say "random direction" and leave the rest to GM to adjudicate how to roll "random direction" ?), it's OK.
cwslyclgh 03-11-04, 01:25 PM	What if you are in place where there is no "north" ? the only place that applies would be the north pole... where you are moving south no matter which way you move :P
Merlion 03-11-04, 01:31 PM	I took your advice Cwys and had a look at the 3.5 Cloudkill, and I agree. I made some changes that I think make Emerald Blast better for its level. If it wasn't irresistible force damage, I would agree this is OK for 9th level. However, as it IS unresistible damage that strikes even ethereal without problems, it is not really beyond 9th level Not that I can see. I think it would be rather solid spell if it dealt 1d6/level (max.25d6) and allowed regular reflex for half. Heck, it would be terribly powerful spell anyway No, it would be just exactly like every other area effect damage spell in the game. Its a very reasonble tradeoff...it does way less damage than other 9th level spells, and in exchange, the damage is unavoidable. we're still only looking at like 40 damage at 20th level anyway. Err... right. I would rather expect thermal shock long before blindness. But as I said, with both blindness and d8, it's too powerful anyway well, if you want to come up with something to reflect Thermal shock I'd be glad to look at it. It isnt to powerful. Its at the die cap for its level and has a minor, brief, secondary effect with a save to avoid. and it has an expensive focus as well. Uurgh. Do you not understand that taking ANYONE out of action WITHOUT save or other defense is BROKEN No. I dont. If you hate all-or-nothing spells, then just don't touch disabling status spells But you see, there is nothing in the actual rules that say they have to be all or nothing. Just your opnion. I am going to place a hitpoint limit on the spell, and reduce the daze on a failed save to a single round. Oh wee, I just dazed 10 Tarrasques theres only 1 Tarrasque, and I believe its immune to stun. Why I say it's still too powerful ? Because it's guaranteed damage. No defense. Getting acid off ? Yep, read the text of Melf's Acid Arrow. Right, in other words enemy not only takes damage, but gives you a free turn to blast him into oblivion huh? And spell should allow INHERENT defenses to work, or be manageable by potential target. Acid resistance is inherent to very few, and 15d6 damage is hardly manageable at level 12 (for example) the spell does allow INHERENT defenses to work. there are a number of things with Acid Resistance, plus, the spell Generally saving throw is inherent generaly, Conjuration damage spells create acid, have no saving throw and are not subject to spell resistance. No one else has had a problem with this spell..some have said it seemed weak. And no, not people in my gaming group...people who posted on this thread. Why disabling spells can't work regardless of target's power ? Because it's NOT balanced for 15th level caster to automatically confuse 10 red wyrms, regardless of how cool it sounds. well, if your that worried about the health of red Wyrms take a look at a little spell called Polar Ray. An 8th level spell having no save is perfectly acceptable. Spell resistance still applies, and as this is a Mind-Affecting spell, many things are totaly immune anyway. What if you are in place where there is no "north" ? When are you flying ? Except the direction choosing (maybe just say "random direction" and leave the rest to GM to adjudicate how to roll "random direction" ?), it's OK. Thats a little too much DM adjudication. I think its just right as it is...it gives you a base, and the DM can rule on odd situations. Dante, you really need to take a breath and calm down with your caps and your sarcasm please.
Beamup 03-11-04, 02:12 PM	You should take note that in all cases the focus is almost 100% irrelevant. 1000 gold is chump change by the time you can cast any of these. Originally posted by Merlion Diamond Blast Average 50 damage at 20th level. About half as much as a Meteor Swarm, without the multi-targeting, possible bludgeoning, a smaller area. For this you disallow a save and most DR. Not terribly unreasonable. Emerald Blast Average 7 CON damage (14 if they fail the saves) in an area. At 10th level, this will do on average 17.5 damage to everything in the area, 35 if they fail the save. Then the same in 10 rounds. This is similar to two Fireballs (one now, one later), plus the instakill possibility. Seems OK. Ruby Blast A more powerful cone-shaped Fireball, with about 30% more average damage and a cap half again as high, plus blindness. Make it d6 and it's fine, as is it's a bit much... the die caps really ARE meant for d6s. 15d8 is about equivalent to 20d6, for reference purposes. Sapphire Blast A 5th level spell that incapacitates everyone in the area for a minimum of 1 round (assuming you make the change you mention in your last post). Still too powerful. Put a LOW HD cap on the secondary effect and you're OK. Topaz Blast Again reduce to d6. Opal Blast A 6th level spell dealing 15d6 of no-save, no-SR, no-attack roll damage over a large area. NO WAY. Allow a Reflex save to negate. Iolite Blast Guaranteed Confusion of everything in a large area for a minimum of 15 rounds??? UTTERLY INSANE. Basically like a multi-target, longer-duration Maze - even better, really, since Confusion tends to make them kill each other. Allow a Will save to negate. Amethyst Blast Long range might be a bit much. I'd make it Medium, but Long seems plausible.
Merlion 03-11-04, 03:03 PM	You should take note that in all cases the focus is almost 100% irrelevant. 1000 gold is chump change by the time you can cast any of these. Not entirely First, 1k gold is 1k gold. Second, if your wanting to cast several of thease spells, your looking at even more. More importantly, if the gem is lost or stolen or destroyed, you cant cast the spell. A more powerful cone-shaped Fireball, with about 30% more average damage and a cap half again as high, plus blindness. Make it d6 and it's fine, as is it's a bit much... the die caps really ARE meant for d6s. 15d8 is about equivalent to 20d6, for reference purposes. then it would suffer the same problem as Cone of Cold in that its just a cone shaped fireball 2 spell levels higher, until 11th level at which time its a cone shaped fireball 2 levels higher that deals an average of 3 more points of damage...or 6 more at 12th level..etc..etc.. A 5th level spell that incapacitates everyone in the area for a minimum of 1 round (assuming you make the change you mention in your last post). Still too powerful. Put a LOW HD cap on the secondary effect and you're OK. I'm going to put a cap of 150 hit points on the whole thing, and possible change the secondary effect to a Slow type thing. Again reduce to d6. See above A 6th level spell dealing 15d6 of no-save, no-SR, no-attack roll damage over a large area. NO WAY. Allow a Reflex save to negate. why? and please dont yell. Compare to Acid Fog. More damage at a time, but for less time. Immobile. And doesnt have the solid fog/slow effect. Additionally, I will elaborate on the removing of the acid...jumping in water or dousing with wine will most likely do it. This is the way that Conjuration damage dealers generaly work. Guaranteed Confusion of everything in a large area for a minimum of 15 rounds??? UTTERLY INSANE Please stop yelling, and express you opnion without questioning my sanity or intelligence. Basically like a multi-target, longer-duration Maze - even better, really, since Confusion tends to make them kill each other Or you, or your party memebers. Confusion's not that great an effect. Allow a Will save to negate. No, a no save effect at 8th level is perfectly ok, spell resistance still applies, and as a mind-affecting affect quite a few things are immune anyway. I may make it a set duration however. Long range might be a bit much. I'd make it Medium, but Long seems plausible. I think its fine as-is. I'd considered a mile, decided that was too much.
Beamup 03-11-04, 03:29 PM	Originally posted by Merlion then it would suffer the same problem as Cone of Cold in that its just a cone shaped fireball 2 spell levels higher, until 11th level at which time its a cone shaped fireball 2 levels higher that deals an average of 3 more points of damage...or 6 more at 12th level..etc..etc.. No, the blindness is unique. The d8 is too much damage. I could agree with making it d6 and 5th level, on further thought. Blindness effect in exchange for more common resistance (as compared to Cone of Cold). I repeat - making it a d8 increases the power by about 33%. 15d8=20d6. I'm going to put a cap of 150 hit points on the whole thing, and possible change the secondary effect to a Slow type thing. The Slow effect sounds like an excellent approach. I think the spell is good now. why? and please dont yell. Compare to Acid Fog. More damage at a time, but for less time. Immobile. And doesnt have the solid fog/slow effect. Additionally, I will elaborate on the removing of the acid...jumping in water or dousing with wine will most likely do it. That wasn't a yell, that was speaking firmly. The damage is too much for a no-save no-SR spell over a large area. Acid Fog will only do a FRACTION of the damage this spell does (nobody's going to stay in the fog for EIGHT rounds). You could also reduce the persistent damage to three turns instead of four (possibly even two, but that might be overkill). That would help a good deal. Please stop yelling, and express you opnion without questioning my sanity or intelligence. I said nothing about your sanity or intelligence, just about the spell. Which IS insane. Or you, or your party memebers. Confusion's not that great an effect. Yes it is. 10% chance of attacking effectively. 10% chance of being somewhat effective. 60% chance of doing nothing of note. 30% chance of attacking friends (assuming the enemies are acting intelligently, i.e. staying clear). It's a VERY powerful effect. No, a no save effect at 8th level is perfectly ok, spell resistance still applies, and as a mind-affecting affect quite a few things are immune anyway. I may make it a set duration however. Compare to Maze, a no-save yes-SR spell at 8th level. This spell is a better or at least comparable effect (enemy will be ripping each other apart), lasts longer, AND is multi-target. Mind-affecting just isn't enough of a drawback. I think its fine as-is. I'd considered a mile, decided that was too much. I can accept it as-is as well. I just feel (weakly) that Medium might be more appropriate.
Merlion 03-11-04, 09:24 PM	No, the blindness is unique The blindness is a small effect, lasts only 1 round, and has a save to negate. I'm not having a Fire Cone of Cold that just happens to maybe blind for a round That wasn't a yell, that was speaking firmly Long time interenet people consider captials to be yelling. If you want emphasis, use bold or italics. Acid Fog will only do a FRACTION of the damage this spell does (nobody's going to stay in the fog for EIGHT rounds Thats very circumstantial. Acid Fog reduces speed, therefore someone might be in there for quite a while. Acid Fog is generaly going to deal less damage than my spell, but it also has 2 deccent secondary effects, and a real duration. Although its unlikely to actual do this to any given creature, Acid Fog can deal up to 40d6 damage. I said nothing about your sanity or intelligence, just about the spell. Which IS insane Thats purely your opnion. And I accept what your saying, I would just apreciate a slightly friendlier aproach in future. Yes it is. 10% chance of attacking effectively. 10% chance of being somewhat effective. 60% chance of doing nothing of note. 30% chance of attacking friends (assuming the enemies are acting intelligently, i.e. staying clear). It's a VERY powerful effect. It can be useful, but seeing as how theres a net chance of about one-third that it either acts normaly, or attacks you..its not as effective as daze stun or possibly even blind. Compare to Maze, a no-save yes-SR spell at 8th level. This spell is a better or at least comparable effect (enemy will be ripping each other apart), lasts longer. Its comparable. My spell effects multiple targets, but Maze takes a single target completely out of the fight. Confused creatures still have a goodly chance to do things you dont want them to do. Also, there is no protection against Maze save SR. Mind-affecting just isn't enough of a drawback I'd agree if the effect was more powerful...stun or daze or something non random and automaticaly debilitating, but its not.
dantedarkstar 03-12-04, 05:26 AM	Merlion, considering no-save attacks: How would you feel if 15th level fighter had access to a feat that allows him to stun attacked opponent for 1d4+1 rounds ? No save. Would you be happy to face 15th level archer ? Or maybe "hit opponent loses all spellcasting ability for 1 round/level" ? No save. You seem to be awfully one-sided with your judgement, looking at everything from wizard's perspective, not from balance perspective. It seems that if the spell is better than other spells you could find in PHB, and not obviously utterly broken, you are saying "it's good spell". I ask you. Is it because you play in very high-powered games, where every 10th level fighter has Cowl of Warding and +20 on Will saves ? Or is it because you feel spellcasters should "rule" ?
Merlion 03-12-04, 10:18 AM	How would you feel if 15th level fighter had access to a feat that allows him to stun attacked opponent for 1d4+1 rounds ? No save. Or maybe "hit opponent loses all spellcasting ability for 1 round/level" ? No save. Your now discussing something very different. Spells and feats are very, very different things. Feats and spells are not balanced against each other. Spells are balanced against other spells, and feats are balanced against other feats. That being said, I'd have no problem with stunning blow feat of some kind. A feat that specficaly took away spellcasting powers...as oposed to stunning or something similiar that simply prevented the action of spellcasting, would have to be a special feat for the Eldritch Knight or some similiar prestige class since to supress a spellcasters powers would require supernatural powers of your own. You seem to be awfully one-sided with your judgement, looking at everything from wizard's perspective, not from balance perspective No, I'm just not looking at it from your perspective of balance, which is skewed by your whole reformed power gamer, sees some sort of attempt to "munckinize" behind anything that anyone writes. Although I do feel that some of the spells that for unknown reasons people on thease boards try to laud as benchmarks are in fact spells so limited that I dont know why a mage would bother to use them under some circumstances. It seems that if the spell is better than other spells you could find in PHB, and not obviously utterly broken, you are saying "it's good spell". No, the problem is if a player/DM written spell is on par with the normal or strong spells in the PH, or if it does something a little new or different, or that another spell of its level doesnt already do, rather than being equal to or less than the absolute least powerful spell in the PH, and nearly identical to the other spells of its level, you and many others consider it grossly overpowered. I ask you. Is it because you play in very high-powered games, where every 10th level fighter has Cowl of Warding and +20 on Will saves You and I have had this discussion over, and over, and over. I have played in normal games. I'm not even in one at all right now, havent been for some time. I use the guidlines in the DMG, the spells in the PH, and a little common sense and creativity, when writting material. Or is it because you feel spellcasters should "rule" ? This brings me around to my other point regarding your ill advised comparsion of spells and feats. Spellcasters can do things that other people cant. Thats what magic is all about. Can a fighter change his form, or dominate the minds of others, or ward himself with force? Well mages can...so by your reasoning fighters should be able to as well. The main reason I primarily write spells and other things related to magic is not because I think spellcasters should "rule". This is a roleplaying game, not Everquest or some other combat simulation game...thats not even what its really about when it comes down to it. Any spellcaster has way more abilities than any warrior type, but that doesnt mean they "rule". It means they are a different type of character. I write magic and magic related things because thats what I enjoy and understand. Although I realize you think I dont understand it, and that I dont understand the points you try to make to me....I do understand your points, I just disagree with them and the limited-thinking, knee-jerk reaction reasoning behind them. And in the case of this thread and thease spells, so do many others...several have found some of the spells you think are so broken to be under rather than overpowered. Its interesting that you didnt even bother to actualy respond to my rebuttals of your last post...you just did your whole, "well what if a fighter could...." spiel. Compare my Iolite Blast to Maze, Symbol of Insanity, Polar Ray, Mind Blank, Prismatic Wall, Power Word: Stun, and I think you'll find it fits. I will probably make it a set duration, and set a pretty high HD cap (Caster level or so), but thats it.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-12-04, 11:55 AM	I must add my voice to the "no save confusion is bad" camp. No-save spells, by their very nature, are far more powerful than just their respective effects. For one thing, no save means it completely ignores distinctions in power levels. Unless spell resistance plays in, a no-save spell will work on anyone, no matter the difference in levels. This by itself is a bad thing. To counteract this, all no-save spells in the core rules have some kind of mitigating factor. They either work on a limited amount of HD, a limited amount of hp, or simply have an effect that is less than optimal. Compare my Iolite Blast to Maze, Symbol of Insanity, Polar Ray, Mind Blank, Prismatic Wall, Power Word: Stun, and I think you'll find it fits. Let's do that. Maze: Removes one target from the fight, no save. However, that target is invulnerable to all harm while mazed. Symbol of Insanity: Gives a saving throw. Polar Ray: Elemental damage can be resisted, and it's a ray, which means it's susceptible to missing. Mind Blank: Defensive spell. Comparing an offensive spell to a defensive spell is like comparing a shield and a sword. Not too useful, unless you're talking weight. Prismatic Wall: Gives a save. Cannot be cast on a creature. Is immobile. Power word Stun: No save. But hp limit. Only one target. Iolite Blast: No save. No limit. Multiple targets. Confusion is often a more useful effect than stunning. So, no. This is not even a balanced spell if it's looked at in comparison to spells of it's relative level. It should, at the least, either: A- Have a save, or B- Have a max HD cap. Doing that would make it like Wail of the Banshee, which, unsurprisingly enough, is level 9.
Merlion 03-12-04, 12:57 PM	Maze: Removes one target from the fight, no save. However, that target is invulnerable to all harm while mazed. but it is completely removed from the fight. Confused creatures still do things you dont want them too about a 3rd of the time. Symbol of Insanity: Gives a saving throw But if you fail, its permanent till removed. Defensive spell. Comparing an offensive spell to a defensive spell is like comparing a shield and a sword. Not too useful, unless you're talking weight No not really. Broad comparisions within a spell level can be good. This one in particuarly, because this spell makes you immune to my spell. Polar Ray: Elemental damage can be resisted, and it's a ray, which means it's susceptible to missing. The ranged touch attack is laughable. At 15th level a wizard is going to make the ranged touch attack unless its an enemy with a really high touch AC ( a Monk for instance). In fact at that level, it could almost be seen as an advantage since it allows for critical hits. Yes elemental damage can be resisted...and many things are immune to mind affecting affects. And again, its an overall power comparison. And in response to people bringing up things about this spell confusing a bunch of dragons...well if you want a Dragon killer, look at Polar ray. Power word Stun: No save. But hp limit. Only one target And a more powerful affect, and a level lower. So, no. This is not even a balanced spell if it's looked at in comparison to spells of it's relative level Thats your opnion B- Have a max HD cap. I am going to maybe shorten the duration slightly, and add a hit die cap...but its going to be a high one. I want this spell to affect things that arent just ants to you at the level you can cast it. It will probably only affect a creature if its Hit Dice are no more than your caster level.
Merlion 03-12-04, 12:59 PM	Confusion is often a more useful effect than stunning. and I completely disagree with this. Stunning takes an oponent out for its duration entirely, and inflicts defensive penalties. Confusion can make things fight each other....they might be equal, but Confusion is definitly not a stronger effect.
Merlion 03-12-04, 01:04 PM	Ok I made some changes to Iolite, and changed Emerald to the normal spell save DC again.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-12-04, 01:04 PM	I said it's "often" more useful. Not always. Personally, there are many occasions where given the choice between having an opponent not acting all all for sure, and an opponent potentially beating his own teammates up, I'd chose option two with no hesitation. When there's only one or two people around, yes, stunning is better. But with a 60' cone, you could get a good 7 or 8 people in there, and having them confused means that, on average, in any given round, at least 2 of them could be fighting on your side. Now that's not insignificant.
Merlion 03-12-04, 01:11 PM	No its not. But stunning them all would be even more significant, as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, I changed it a bit
Merlion 03-13-04, 12:07 PM	Altered the damage on Emerald a little
dantedarkstar 03-15-04, 04:29 AM	Originally posted by Merlion Your now discussing something very different. Spells and feats are very, very different things. Feats and spells are not balanced against each other. Spells are balanced against other spells, and feats are balanced against other feats. In other words there shouldn't be balance between spellcasters and nonspellcasters. No, I'm just not looking at it from your perspective of balance, which is skewed by your whole reformed power gamer, sees some sort of attempt to "munckinize" behind anything that anyone writes. Well, I'll tell you how do I judge spells. 1.Look at spell from wizard's perspective. If I immediately want this spell, and can think of multiple combos that are far, far more effective than anything I've known before, this spell is probably overpowered. 2.Look at existing core spells. If there are spells very similiar to "I want it" spell, I may revise "overpowered" note, and I just give them "hmm, not sure about it" note (since I still can see abuses or just higher power/usefulness than already granted to wizards, etc., so I'm not sure if it's good idea and if it won't shift balance). And I'm not as much reformed as I would like to :smirk: Although I do feel that some of the spells that for unknown reasons people on thease boards try to laud as benchmarks are in fact spells so limited that I dont know why a mage would bother to use them under some circumstances. Ah, of course. After all, basic benchmarks for spells should be 3.0 Haste, Harm and 3.5 Shapechange. Yes, if you are looking for more powerful spells than the most powerful that already exist within core rules, then you invariably fall into "overpowered" category. Since your new spell has to be more "worthy" (=powerful) than best that already is there (otherwise, you would take the standard most powerful spells), they have to be more powerful than core. You and I have had this discussion over, and over, and over. I have played in normal games. I'm not even in one at all right now, havent been for some time. I use the guidlines in the DMG, the spells in the PH, and a little common sense and creativity, when writting material. Oh, sorry. I get that impression over and over again it seems. And it also seems my memory isn't THAT good. This brings me around to my other point regarding your ill advised comparsion of spells and feats. Spellcasters can do things that other people cant. Thats what magic is all about. Can a fighter change his form, or dominate the minds of others, or ward himself with force? Well mages can...so by your reasoning fighters should be able to as well. So, in other words you DO think casters should be more powerful. Any spellcaster has way more abilities than any warrior type, but that doesnt mean they "rule". It means they are a different type of character. This only supports previous. If they are different types of characters, why spellcastes should be better at combat, the ONLY thing fighters can do ? They are different, after all. Should be able to play wizard with NO offensive magic. Its interesting that you didnt even bother to actualy respond to my rebuttals of your last post...you just did your whole, "well what if a fighter could...." spiel. Well, I just didn't quote you, and omitted the Diamond Blast part, perhaps because I feel you are right (more or less) about it after all. When I think of Sonic Meteor Swarm, Diamond Blast stop to look so great after all.
Merlion 03-15-04, 12:41 PM	In other words there shouldn't be balance between spellcasters and nonspellcasters. Ah, of course. After all, basic benchmarks for spells should be 3.0 Haste, Harm and 3.5 Shapechange So, in other words you DO think casters should be more powerful I'm not trying to be insulting, but you really need to learn how to talk to people. Your putting words in my mouth, and intentionally warping and misinterpreting my meanings. Of course there should be balance between spellcasters and non spellcasters. But you dont compare feats and spells to see if they are balanced. You balance feats against other feats, and spells against other spells. Heck, the designers have stated that all feats arent even balanced entirely with each other. No, the benchmark spells should be things like Charm Person, Sleep, Invisibility, Melf's Acid Arrow, Fireball, Fly, Blink etc etc etc. But not Chill Touch and Lesser Confusion and Daze Monster, and Cone of Cold and Wind Wall and the like. Spells should be measured against average spells, not the weakest spells possible. People like you assume that if a spell isnt on par or weaker than the weakest spells in the PH, and that if they are highly desirable, they must be "broken" I think that in a fantasy game or story, people who can use magic simply are going to be able to do more different things than people that cant. The only way for that not to be the case would be to make magic extremely limited (only able to do the things ordinary people can normaly do, in which case it isnt magic) or let everyone use 1st through 9th level spells. Non-magic using and magic using characters must still be balanced and enjoyable to play, and their are things that they can do better...like surviving...and outlasting an enemy. My point was your deal about implying that a spell is to powerful because a fighter cant do the same sort of thing is silly. As I said, can I fighter take a feat to throw fire or change form or teleport? Of course not, he's a fighter not a mage. If they are different types of characters, why spellcastes should be better at combat, the ONLY thing fighters can do Fighters are better in armed physical combat than anyone. And it isnt the only thing they can do. Its their only combat option and the only thing they mechancicaly shine at but since this is a roleplaying game and not a combat simulation game like Diablo or everquest, theres always many things you can do. and thats where the part about different types of characters come in. Mages may be able to do more different things but not everyone wants to play a spellcaster . Different people like different types of characters. Well, I just didn't quote you, and omitted the Diamond Blast part, perhaps because I feel you are right (more or less) about it after all. When I think of Sonic Meteor Swarm, Diamond Blast stop to look so great after all. Or regular meteor swarm for that matter. You need to start thinking more before you go off, and you really need to quit assuming everyone is trying to "munckin" and come up with "broken" combos or whatever.
dantedarkstar 03-17-04, 05:59 AM	Originally posted by Merlion I'm not trying to be insulting, but you really need to learn how to talk to people. :embarrass I sometimes write a bit too much. I know Your putting words in my mouth, and intentionally warping and misinterpreting my meanings. That was the first that came into mind after reading your reply, considering the context. I was accusing you of not balancing spellcaster against nonspellcasters, and you replied that spells shouldn't be balanced against feats. Spells=wizard, Feats=fighter (that's the only special thingy he has). Conclusion => Wizard shouldn't be balanced vs Fighter. You balance feats against other feats, and spells against other spells. But this doesn't a bit balance wizard against fighters. Heck, the designers have stated that all feats arent even balanced entirely with each other. And what that has to do with feats vs spells ? No, the benchmark spells should be things like Charm Person, Sleep, Invisibility, Melf's Acid Arrow, Fireball, Fly, Blink etc etc etc. But not Chill Touch and Lesser Confusion and Daze Monster, and Cone of Cold and Wind Wall and the like. Spells should be measured against average spells, not the weakest spells possible. People like you assume that if a spell isnt on par or weaker than the weakest spells in the PH, and that if they are highly desirable, they must be "broken" Hmm... The interesting thing is that you say that new spells should be measured against average spells, not weakest. Yet, you measure new spells against most powerful spells of given level, not average. I understand you reasoning: If it's weaker than the thing I already got, why bother ? Another point: Why you say spells shouldn't be compared to, for example, Cone of Cold ? *YOU* consider it weak. But not everyone does, and no matter how hard you try, it IS core spell, and in fact a representative 5th level destructive evocation. You should compare not to spells that you consider most powerful for that level, but the ones that are most similiar to the spell proposed. Judgement about superiority of Hold Monster vs Cone of Cold can be biased, unaccurate or just plain wrong. Numbers can't be biased or wrong. (yes, this is direct reference to your Ruby Blast and so.) My point was your deal about implying that a spell is to powerful because a fighter cant do the same sort of thing is silly. As I said, can I fighter take a feat to throw fire or change form or teleport? Of course not, he's a fighter not a mage. The main things I am concerned with: 1) Often fighter can't DEFEND himself at all from your spells. 2) Given protections wizard posesses, fighter can't do a thing versus wizard too. Fighters are better in armed physical combat than anyone. And it isnt the only thing they can do. Its their only combat option and the only thing they mechancicaly shine at but since this is a roleplaying game and not a combat simulation game like Diablo or everquest, theres always many things you can do. and thats where the part about different types of characters come in. The problem is, that no matter if you hack enemy to pieces or fry them with fireball, the effect is the same - defeated enemy. It doesn't matter wizard isn't good with weapons. He can still fight (with spells) as well, and even better, than fighter. And yes, there are different things outside combat fighters can do. Every that thing wizard can do too as well, without need for his magic. Hmm... he usually can do that things BETTER, because of much more skill points. And of course, wizard gets added bonus spells, with which wizard can do FAR more than fighter outside combat. And I mean FAAAR more. Mages may be able to do more different things but not everyone wants to play a spellcaster . Different people like different types of characters. This has nothing to do with balance. It's the balance I am speaking about right now. You need to start thinking more before you go off, and you really need to quit assuming everyone is trying to "munckin" and come up with "broken" combos or whatever. I don't assume, as I said. I just look at the spell, and when I see that *I* would take it because of it's power, and can come up with multiple situations where it greatly outdoes anything present, I have doubts. But on the other hand, about 75% new spells I see on these boards are offensive or defensive spells, designed without much flavor (not talking about these gem spells now) and just increasing combat abilities. Strangely enough, at least 75% of these spells are either clearly overpowered or of disputable balance. Only 25% of all the spells are noncombat spells, which attempt somehting else than to blast enemies to smithereens or make you immune to anything enemy can try.
Merlion 03-17-04, 05:53 PM	That was the first that came into mind after reading your reply, considering the context. I was accusing you of not balancing spellcaster against nonspellcasters, and you replied that spells shouldn't be balanced against feats. Spells and feats are not balanced directly against each other, nor should they be, they are entirely different mechanics. And, you were putting words in my mouth. And you were distorting my obvious meanings. Not really a viable debate tactic. Spells=wizard, Feats=fighter (that's the only special thingy he has).Wizard shouldn't be balanced vs Fighter. Except that logic is entirely incorrect. Feats, spells, and classes are different mechanics, and are not directly balanced against each other. You dont take a feat and say, this feat can do this, but a rogue gets this as a class ability so that feat isnt balanced. You account for things like that to a point, but you balance like against like..feats byu feats, spells by spells, classes by classes, items by items. But this doesn't a bit balance wizard against fighters. What does that have to do with this thread? and the classes are not balanced against each other in the sense of all of them being able to do everything equally well, or being able to defeat each other in a duel. They are balanced by: Being sure each class is best at its particular schtick and: by being sure each class has roughly the same ability to deal with challenegs and situations, as a whole. And what that has to do with feats vs spells ? That comment has to do with another point...I understand that core is the baseline (just the baseline) for balance...but you need to understand, core itself is not perfectly balanced. The interesting thing is that you say that new spells should be measured against average spells, not weakest. Yet, you measure new spells against most powerful spells of given level, not average. This is your opnion. I balance my spells against the staples for their spell level, and against the overall degree of power of the spell level itself. *YOU* consider it weak. But not everyone does, and no matter how hard you try, it IS core spell, and in fact a representative 5th level destructive evocation. Its the only one of its kind. But that doesnt mean its the only viable comparison, or that no 5th level attack spell can be any better than it. You should compare not to spells that you consider most powerful for that level, but the ones that are most similiar to the spell proposed. Judgement about superiority of Hold Monster vs Cone of Cold can be biased, unaccurate or just plain wrong. Not neccsarily entirely, but yes the most similiar comparison possible is good. But a comparison to the overall power of the spell level itself is also good. But there are some spell levels where their are no spells of a certain type...so you kind of have to wing it. People like you seem to think that means there never should be a spell of that type of that level. 1) Often fighter can't DEFEND himself at all from your spells Bull. First, every spell in existance has multiple means of avoiding it effects. Saving throws, spell resistance, energy resistances, abilities like Evasion. And, thease abilities can all be had or enhanced heavily through magic items, which are very common in DnD currently. And there are almost no items that say, increase saving throw dcs (yes the ability score boost items do this, but their basicaly the only ones) or increase caster level, or anything of the kind. A fighter can have all manner of defenses against spells. lastly, all that has essentialy nothing to do with the topic of this thread 2) Given protections wizard posesses, fighter can't do a thing versus wizard too Absurd. Wizards have low AC, and even lower hitpoints, and warrior types attack bonuses and damage potential are amazing. And, see my above statements. The problem is, that no matter if you hack enemy to pieces or fry them with fireball, the effect is the same - defeated enemy. It doesn't matter wizard isn't good with weapons. Yes it does matter. Fighters are the best at armed physical combat, with manufactured weapons . They are not the best at defeating enemies, through combat or any other means. all the classes are equal at defeating enemies . Or thats how its intended. And yes, there are different things outside combat fighters can do. Every that thing wizard can do too as well, without need for his magic. Hmm... he usually can do that things BETTER, because of much more skill points. Well of course. A character who can do magic, is going to be able to do a lot of different things...just like in fantasy literature. A character who studies armed combat is going to be really good at that. They are different types of characters . What do you propose to change this? either you have to reduce magic down to almost nothing, or you have to give more things to the fighter...at which point he isnt the Fighter anymore. And again, this has basicaly nothing to do with this thread. This has nothing to do with balance. It's the balance I am speaking about right now. It does have to do with balance, and it has to do with your idea that every character class should be able to do everything every other character class can. Yes, mages and the like can do more different things than other people because they use magic . But because stories dont just include magic uses, and people do just want to play magic uses, we have other classes, that do other things. No, they cant do everything a mage can. But they can do some things better, or more consistently. And they are equally effective characters in practice overall..and more importantly, equally enjoyble to those that like those character types. I don't assume, as I said. I just look at the spell, and when I see that *I* would take it because of it's power, and can come up with multiple situations where it greatly outdoes anything present, I have doubts Yes you do assume, all the time. Virtualy every post I see you make on a new thread about a spell or something involves you talking about what sort of "munckin combo" you think the person is trying to pull off. Just like with my Demolish spell, you said you figured I was trying to find a way to do an area effect Sunder, and it had nothing to do with what I was actualy trying to do. You assume, all the time, and you need to stop. But on the other hand, about 75% new spells I see on these boards are offensive or defensive spells, designed without much flavor (not talking about these gem spells now) and just increasing combat abilities. Strangely enough, at least 75% of these spells are either clearly overpowered or of disputable balance. I disagree with all aspects of this entirely. Many of the spells are quite flavourful. In case you hadnt noticed mosat of your precious core spells are attack or defense spells. And most of the things posted here are basicaly well balanced but some times in need of a little work and assistance...which is why people post them. But to say 75% are "clearly overpowered" is absurd. Only 25% of all the spells are noncombat spells, which attempt somehting else than to blast enemies to smithereens or make you immune to anything enemy can try. Well, maybe if your precious core rulebooks had some guidlines for anything other than blowing people up, people would do more non combat spells. Not having to worry about people saying its overpowered just because it hasnt been done before would help too. If you dont drop your bad attitude, your assumptions, and you degressions from the subject at hand, I will just stop responding to you entirely or put you on ignore. Which is sad cause some times there are good ideas among the foaming-at-the-mouth ranting.
dantedarkstar 03-18-04, 06:59 AM	First, my last post wasn't at all intended as any kind of foam-at-the-mouth rant. It was entirely explanation. I'm sorry if I didn't write it to look like one. I don't really continue this to bash you or something, but it's my attempt to make you see and understand my point. Originally posted by Merlion And, you were putting words in my mouth. And you were distorting my obvious meanings. Not really a viable debate tactic. Okay, okay. Maybe I have sometimes a bit too far-fetched throught implications. Maybe I should have put "As far as I understand" insted "In other words" or something. You account for things like that to a point, but you balance like against like..feats byu feats, spells by spells, classes by classes, items by items. But if one class has only feats and other only spells, then balancing feats in general against spells in general is quite a implication of balancing those two classes against each other. Just my thoughts, NOT rant. (do I have to put that in my every comment ?) That comment has to do with another point...I understand that core is the baseline (just the baseline) for balance...but you need to understand, core itself is not perfectly balanced. That's right. I perfectly agree that core indeed isn't balanced. There are spells and classes which are ultimately superior to others. This is your opnion. I balance my spells against the staples for their spell level, and against the overall degree of power of the spell level itself. But why do you ignore the spells you consider weak ? If you indeed ignore weak spells and say "they are weak for thier level, so they are no comparision", this means you in fact aren't comparing to average of that level, but against let's say average of the upper half. Not neccsarily entirely, but yes the most similiar comparison possible is good. But a comparison to the overall power of the spell level itself is also good. But there are some spell levels where their are no spells of a certain type...so you kind of have to wing it. People like you seem to think that means there never should be a spell of that type of that level. No. I just think that you expect too much increase in power per level of the spell. If you compare Cone of Cold and Ruby Blast, you could roughly say that you consider 1 level of spell to be worth increase of +1 damage per die (let's say that we will ignore the blinding and consider it balanced by the fact of more commonly resisted energy type, which isn't accurately balanced either considering features like Mastery of Energy and Energy Substitution feats). Going by that, Cone of Cold should already deal d8 (compared to fireball, we won't increase die twice, because number of dice increases), and Horrid Wilting should deal damage in d12 ! I assure you this wouldn't be balanced. I just ask you to not take this as rant or attack. I am trying to explain you why I find your spells usually too powerful. You base them on lower level examples, and increase thier power with level. Unfortunately I think you increase the power too much per level. Bull. First, every spell in existance has multiple means of avoiding it effects. Saving throws, spell resistance, energy resistances, abilities like Evasion. And, thease abilities can all be had or enhanced heavily through magic items, which are very common in DnD currently. And there are almost no items that say, increase saving throw dcs (yes the ability score boost items do this, but their basicaly the only ones) or increase caster level, or anything of the kind. A fighter can have all manner of defenses against spells. lastly, all that has essentialy nothing to do with the topic of this thread Yes. Every spell in existence SHOUD have means of avoiding it, like you said. However, looking at your spells, you sometimes deny much of those defenses, allowing only rare ones to apply. And these are the points where my "red alert" goes on. Spells shouldn't disallow all defenses that normally should apply. Absurd. Wizards have low AC, and even lower hitpoints, and warrior types attack bonuses and damage potential are amazing. And, see my above statements. Hmm... I guess my level 17 wizard with AC 46 is then uber-munchkin ? Mind you, few of similiarly munched fighters had real chance of hitting him hard. And it's not about AC. It's about ability to completely avoid fighter attacks. What really can a fighter do if wizard is invisible, with contingent Otiluke's Sphere or teleportation, so that fighter can't even roll thier attack ? What can he do about invisible wizard 600ft up there, raining down fireballs ? What can he do about the indestructible walls of force wizard erected to give him time to buff through the roof ? I am notorious wizard/sorcerer player and I am really terrified with the power usually at my command. As for having to do with the topic - I am explaining why spells should allow defenses, to point out why I consider some of your spells unbalanced. Yes it does matter. Fighters are the best at armed physical combat, with manufactured weapons . They are not the best at defeating enemies, through combat or any other means. all the classes are equal at defeating enemies . Or thats how its intended. I would really like to know what does it matter if I hack my opponent or fry them. And if every character is equal in combat, then why wizards have so much more power outside combat available to them, when fighter has few ? You say fighters can't do some things mage can. Well, I would say they can't do a LOT of things mage can. Yes you do assume, all the time. Virtualy every post I see you make on a new thread about a spell or something involves you talking about what sort of "munckin combo" you think the person is trying to pull off. Just like with my Demolish spell, you said you figured I was trying to find a way to do an area effect Sunder, and it had nothing to do with what I was actualy trying to do. You assume, all the time, and you need to stop. Sorry. I guess I'm incurable munchkin and powergamer then. As for Demolish, I didn't assume that until you wanted to absolutely be able to ignore magical things hardness. Magical things are usually items. But let's not start debate about that. I disagree with all aspects of this entirely. Many of the spells are quite flavourful. I didn't say ALL. I said many of them. Really, what's so flavorful for example about improved bull's strength, which only difference is higher Str boost ? Or about "better" haste, which has no word on it how it works, only a note that it gives this and that benefit ? And one more thing. Core isn't "my precious" :D But it is kind of baseline as you said. I know it mainly has spells to blast opponent to smithereens or something. And that best described rules are about creation of such spells. Yet somehow, people can't get enough of those killer spells. And yet every now and then I see spells that go far beyond these nice rules. Why ? Which is sad cause some times there are good ideas among the foaming-at-the-mouth ranting. Thanks.
Merlion 03-18-04, 12:01 PM	First, my last post wasn't at all intended as any kind of foam-at-the-mouth rant. It was entirely explanation. I'm sorry if I didn't write it to look like one. I don't really continue this to bash you or something, but it's my attempt to make you see and understand my point. Well, I act under the assumption that you dont mean to sound the way you do...but you still do, and I feel the need to call it to your attention. As I've said before, I see and understand your points...I just frequently disagree with them or that they are always 100% supported by the rules. But if one class has only feats and other only spells, then balancing feats in general against spells in general is quite a implication of balancing those two classes against each other Ok, this whole fighter versus wizard thing does not in fact have anything to do with this thread...because the balance of my spells really isnt going to affect the overall balance of wizards versus fighters in DnD as a whole, or neccsarily even in a single game, but I'll address your points anyway. First: Wizards are not just spells, and to a far greater extent, fighters are not just feats (I am unclear about wether your speaking of melee-versus spellcasters in general or just fighter specficaly versus casters, so I am sticking to the latter). Yes, feats are a primary class feature of fighters. But other factors, such as their profciencies and hit die, as well as the nature of melee/ranged combat versus magic must be taken into account when discussing class balance. You cant balance feats against spells, or vice versa. They are very different mechanics, and represent very different things. Spells represent magical effects that alter the world around them, and do things that people cant normaly do, or in ways, or to degrees, that they cant normally do them. Feats, especialy the ones fighters have access to, represent things that anyone can do with suffcient training. They are non magical, non supernatural, learned techniques. Now their could be some overlap...as you mentioned there are spells that stun, and you could have a feat that allowed a warrior to stun a struck oponent briefly. But your not going to have a feat to let the fighter turn invisible or fly...because thats not what feats do. And spells are always going to be able to do things that feats cant. That's right. I perfectly agree that core indeed isn't balanced.There are spells and classes which are ultimately superior to others Well, it goes both ways. Theres also core stuff that is drasticaly sub-optimal..spells like Daze Monster (which is actualy inferior to Colour Spray overall), and various other things. Although imbalance the other way is more common (such as the entire cleric class) But why do you ignore the spells you consider weak ? If you indeed ignore weak spells and say "they are weak for thier level, so they are no comparision", this means you in fact aren't comparing to average of that level, but against let's say average of the upper half. Why would I not ignore something I consider imbalanced, in either direction? Imbalanced things are bad comparisons, wether they are too strong, or not strong enough. Comparing to a spell thats to weak isnt going to tell me much of anything definitive...comparing to a staple spell will. No. I just think that you expect too much increase in power per level of the spell. No, I just think that just because something hasnt been done in a given spell level, doesnt mean it cant be done and in a balanced way. If you compare Cone of Cold and Ruby Blast, you could roughly say that you consider 1 level of spell to be worth increase of +1 damage per die (let's say that we will ignore the blinding and consider it balanced by the fact of more commonly resisted energy type, which isn't accurately balanced either considering features like Mastery of Energy and Energy Substitution feats). Well, energy substitution isnt technicaly core but my deal with the 5th level attack spells is this: a 5th level attack spell that deals 1d6/level, max 15d6 and does nothing else is going to be exactly the same as FB/LB until level 11, and virtualy the same till 13 or so. And an Empowered FB or LB is superior to Cone of Cold, and equal at around 15th, for the same slot. I dont see why a 5th level attack spell cant do 15d6 damage and have a secondary effect of some kind, especialy if it has a costly component or focus (this being said with the assumption that I should switch Ruby Blast to d6's and give it a minor but useful effect...maybe the blinding, maybe something else) Going by that, Cone of Cold should already deal d8 (compared to fireball, we won't increase die twice, because number of dice increases), and Horrid Wilting should deal damage in d12 I'm not saying thats how it should be. I'm saying 5th level attack spells should have something to make them worth taking over FB and LB before 14th level Yes. Every spell in existence SHOUD have means of avoiding it, like you said. However, looking at your spells, you sometimes deny much of those defenses, allowing only rare ones to apply. And these are the points where my "red alert" goes on. Spells shouldn't disallow all defenses that normally should apply But who decides which defenses should normally apply to what spells? the only guidlines we have are on damage caps. There are PH spells that are keyed to some defenses but not others, and if you look at the spells of the game overall, there are here and there some spells that are only subject to a few defenses. Most of my spells on this thread...my Gem spells...are quite average in this way, since most deal one of the 5 types of energy damage, and allow saving throws. And are subject to spell resistance. Opal Blast isnt subject to SR, and doesnt have a save, but it does damage over time with options to make it stop, and is subject to acid resistance. Diamond Blast has no saving throw and is of a diffacult to avoid damage type...but SR still applies, it does low damage, and its a bleepin 9th level spell, its supposed to be powerful. And it's not about AC. It's about ability to completely avoid fighter attacks. What really can a fighter do if wizard is invisible, with contingent Otiluke's Sphere or teleportation, so that fighter can't even roll thier attack ? What can he do about invisible wizard 600ft up there, raining down fireballs ? What can he do about the indestructible walls of force wizard erected to give him time to buff through the roof ? This is somewhat true, but as I've said repeatdly...thats the nature of fantasy. If you dont like it, play a sci fi game. What exactly can one do to change this, that wouldnt involve reducing magic to almost nothing, or giving Fighters magic and therefore making them no lonher the Fighter. Now yes oftentimes, at high levels, in a one on one between a prepared mage and a fighter, the mage is probably going to win. But the classes are not balanced in terms of one on one duels. Also theres the element of teamwork..DnD isnt a solo game...thats why the fighter has the spellcaster in his party dispel some of the enemy wizards protections, and as soon as he can see him and get close, the wizard is dead in a few blows. And if every character is equal in combat, then why wizards have so much more power outside combat available to them, when fighter has few ? because thats the nature of those classes. The fighter is the master of armed combat. thats pretty much it. And to make him anything else would make him cease to be the Fighter. Yet somehow, people can't get enough of those killer spells. And yet every now and then I see spells that go far beyond these nice rules. Why ? Many reasons, some valid, some not. You just need to keep in mind that: we're all intelligent people, we're not all neccsarily trying to "cheat" or "munchkin" and that in the end, the game is about having fun, whatever that means for each individual.
Merlion 03-20-04, 11:51 AM	bump