| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 22 Dec 2005 : 06:36:21
Just reading a thread over at Enworld and it seems that fairly large number of DMs over there dont allow there players open slather access to spells outside of the PHB ie The player has to research it or find someone whose already developed it.
Do any Candlekeep scribes enforce something similar?
Incidently the old FR Adeventures source book listed rarity for a large number of Arcane spells into Common, Uncommon and Rare
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 16:16:14
Your argument has merit, Gavin. I agree, just-make-a-spell-for-it can solve any problem, often with less effort than other approaches.
But I think in terms of the spellsoftware I run on my gnomish computing machinery here. I sometimes encounter a problem which drives me to research relentlessly through vast libraries until I find a spell (or the means to fashion a new spell) which serves to correct my problem. I look at many of my existing spells and find that they are sometimes older, slightly tarnished, perhaps not as versatile as their newer counterparts - but I am generally disinclined towards constantly tinkering and upgrading them with newly researched lore until something appears to be broken. A seasoned supragenius wizard might behave in similar manner, continuing to use any number of spell formula which are "not as good" simply because he is disinclined to change what already works when his efforts would be better spent elsewhere. I try to avoid letting wondrous magical powers evolve into "mundane" tools, though it is much harder in the more streamlined recent versions of the game. |
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 08:19:59
Here's the thing... I've always thought that a character who often has genius / supergenius intelligence (especially when wearing items that increase it, which are among his first purchases), who has all the monster-specific knowledges as class skills, who has spent years studying how to bend reality to his whim, who actually takes the risk and goes out and risks his life adventuring, rather than doing some of the safer / slower ways of getting power... wouldn't people like that be really natural fits for being Wizards, and wouldn't they throw themselves into figuring out the precise spells that are most versatile and best solve any problem, and gravitate to these spells that immediately stop threats to their person, and start looking at 'just get a spell for it' as a way to solve any given problem? I mean, shouldn't some of these more thoughtful, cautious, use-spells-to-quickly-solve-anything wizards be the main ones that SURVIVE adventuring at low levels? To me, the class is the natural fit for the Xanatos Gambit / Batman / Always Prepared / I alter reality and let other people do the hard work (ie "God" wizards) types, which is why the idea of a "Batman Wizard" or "God Wizard" is so common on the optimization boards... To me, it seems that the optimization stuff, the basic class flavor, and the type of people who would follow that path seem to be pretty much the same. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 08:03:40
And the kicker to the joke? He only wrote the book AFTER so many people went looking for it!! I actually had a copy of it at one time. Not sure if I still do- we've moved since then and not unpacked, (It's all in storage upstairs in my dad's workshop.) so I don't remember if it was packed. Some of my stuff tends to disappear between moves on occasion.... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 05:05:11
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
I'm not sure where this trope originated.
I'd suspect that wizards have historically been associated with black magic, necromancy, witchcraft, demon/devil pacts, and suchlike ... often used in folklore as a kind a monster and dire warning of what one might become after traffic with dark powers and forbidden lore. The Poe-inspired Necronomicon and Cthulhu concepts reinforce these notions quite a bit.
It probably started with the witch trials and some of the old Celtic legends of sorcerers who could blast entire armies with their magic. Incidentally, the Necrnomicon was "written" by Lovecraft, not Poe. Believe it or not, it was a practical joke, as people who had read his stories started looking for this mythical book. So he wrote it. After creating numerous "ghost copies" in the card catalogs of various libraries in cities he visited. All because of curiosity about Cthulu and the other "Elder Gods".... The guy was friggin genious.   
And for those interested in a thoroughly brilliant analysis of the "myth" and "history" of the Necronomicon, I'd recommend The Necronomicon Files -- a collaborative work written by Daniel Harms and John Wisdom Gonce III. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 02:31:43
lol, I always get my Poe and Lovecraft, and my Caroll and Dickens, mixed up. My understanding is that part of the "inside joke" was the Necronomicon had in fact never been written. It was more a creation of Lovecraft's contemporaries than his own. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 02:21:36
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
I'm not sure where this trope originated.
I'd suspect that wizards have historically been associated with black magic, necromancy, witchcraft, demon/devil pacts, and suchlike ... often used in folklore as a kind a monster and dire warning of what one might become after traffic with dark powers and forbidden lore. The Poe-inspired Necronomicon and Cthulhu concepts reinforce these notions quite a bit.
It probably started with the witch trials and some of the old Celtic legends of sorcerers who could blast entire armies with their magic. Incidentally, the Necrnomicon was "written" by Lovecraft, not Poe. Believe it or not, it was a practical joke, as people who had read his stories started looking for this mythical book. So he wrote it. After creating numerous "ghost copies" in the card catalogs of various libraries in cities he visited. All because of curiosity about Cthulu and the other "Elder Gods".... The guy was friggin genious. |
| Dracons |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 01:58:58
If it fit my character? Why not.
I had an elder barbarian before. Casted out from his tribe. Had the negatives to his strength/con/dex. (I think my strength was 8). Had alot of fun with him, as he tried to find something to restore his youth and vitiality so he can rejoin.
He did in sorts. You don't need to be young and strong if you can overcome any challenge, regardless of weakness. FOund the inner strength. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 00:34:28
Would you have still played an illusionist if you didn't get special game bonuses for choosing that class? Would you still play one if gnomes offered special advantages as invokers? |
| Dracons |
Posted - 20 Nov 2010 : 00:00:15
I had a gnome illusionist, with spell focus illuision, used the fairy dust to improve the dc. Basically everything I could to bump illusion dcs up. Banned schools were conjuration and evocation.
DM went apepoopy and kicked me out of the game when my shadow evocations and shadow conjuratons and (I wanted to get shades) came into play, declaring that I cheated to get around a loophole.
Mod edit: Language, please.  |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 23:41:08
Invokers, Necromancers, Conjurers, Transmuters, even Abjurers are all popular PC choices. Whereas Diviners, Enchanters, and the long-established Illusionists generally are not. Blasting matters to D&D wizards, I've seen many players chafe at playing a low-level wizard who has a "weak" (or no) contingent of blasting spells with immediate combat application. NPC opponents need to be blast-capable just to hold their own against PCs. |
| idilippy |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 23:36:34
Yeah, personally I don't make a wizard thinking of the most effective way to end any combat, I create a wizard based on a character I want to play, whether that's the diviner who seeks out information with his spells, an evoker too hotheaded to take a subtle route and just slinging his spells everywhere, or a starry eyed apprentice who hasn't really studied enough to know what is the best spell to use in a situation. That doesn't make it wrong for someone to want to optimize and worry about how to maximize their character's tactical effectiveness in a given situation, it just isn't what everyone thinks of when they come up with a wizard character.
That's one reason you'll never see me in any kind of pvp game, since I know without a doubt that 90% of people out there can make better tactical choices in character creation than I can since I honestly don't worry about optimizing when I create a character. For example, I once played a play by post arena game with the story that the winners in the arena would go on to play the actual story and everyone else would be out of the game. Using point-buy I made a monk with 11 cha and int because that's who my character was, only to get wiped out in the first round by the guy who put a 3 in cha and int to get extra points for his other stats, and was just untouchable. That was a perfectly valid choice to make(though his character was way too articulate and described as decent looking for his int and cha scores in my opinion) it just isn't the thing that I would do. Watching the wizard and cleric brackets was annoying to me as well, as someone had a lawful good cleric who in the first round found a way to cast harm on his opponent at range, which I thought was a bit out of character, and then followed it up with some other spell that killed the guy immediately.
Anyways, to get back on topic in my campaign I'm running a Pathfinder game in the realms and I allow any spell from the core book or APG to be taken. My characters are only level 2 though so as they gain levels I plan on adding in some 3.5e FR specific spells to them as rare treasures found in scrolls or captured spellbooks. |
| Dracons |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 23:34:34
I think it harkens to the old days when you were a kid. The sterotype dnd player didnt have many friends. The sterotype dnd player was picked on for being geeky. The sterotype dnd kid likely used a magnifly glass on ants to watch them burn.
Same principal. Burn them all. Your a freaking wizard. Your more powerful then an army. They should bow to your power. If all you do is hide behind some people and do simple spells, then well, not to many people going to fear ya.
You burn and destroy and army without a problem? They'd fear you. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 23:31:29
I'm not sure where this trope originated.
Gandalf, while certainly perceived as capable of blasting stuff, was careful not to do anything of the sort. Even when fighting a balrog. Sarumon had compunction about blasting, but still wasn't really seen doing much of it.
Merlin was known more for shapeshifting, illusion, enchantment, and subtle "utility" sorts of stuff, not for blasting.
I'd suspect that wizards have historically been associated with black magic, necromancy, witchcraft, demon/devil pacts, and suchlike ... often used in folklore as a kind a monster and dire warning of what one might become after traffic with dark powers and forbidden lore. The Poe-inspired Necronomicon and Cthulhu concepts reinforce these notions quite a bit.
While on the other hand the white magic priests and clergy have long been associated with the holy powers of the church. In those cases where practicing magic are admitted, they would always be described as having a healing, protective, buffing nature rather than a blasting one. More of a counterweapon to use against black magic wizards than anything else.
This wouldn't be so evident in shamanic or pagan sorts of cultures, where arbitrary white and black magic distinctions blur together or aren't even made. But D&D is essentially a product of western culture and is arguably the most powerful post-Tolkien influence on modern perceptions of fantasy lore. |
| Dracons |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 22:24:41
Why do people drink to have fun? Not all people need to drink to have fun.
Why do people go skydiving to have fun? Not all people need to skydive for it.
Why do people have fun by sleeping with random people and dumping them that day? Not all people do it for fun.
It isn't a matter of what was done in each edition, it's a simple fact that everyone has fun in different ways. I have far more fun, and laughter when I can just fireblast everyone rather then go ok, I dominate this man to go open the key. Then I cast darkness inside to blind everyone. Then I do a mass teleport spell to my friends to send them inside while they have Devil Vision to see through the magical darkness. Yay!
See? People just have fun in different ways. It's wrong to diciate that a wizard must act this way to be fun. No-one can choose how another person has fun, only the person having fun can do that. |
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 22:22:43
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If you kill something, you don't need to debuff it. 
Well, yes. So it is common in your all's games / it was common in older FR games that direct damage spells drops at least one of the 'biggest threats' a round? Maybe more of the biggest threats? That's what the Mailman attempts to do. In most 3.5e games I know of, it takes a LOT of work to get DD spellcasting to make 1+ of the 'huge threats', or if you are swarmed by a ton of people, at least half of the bad guys, an immediate 'nonthreat', in one round. Was doing this more easy or common in 2e? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 22:19:47
quote:
Originally posted by Gavinfoxx
One thing I've noticed as odd here...
People here seem to really really like the idea that Arcane spells are best used to deal damage.
Where does this idea come from? It is... reaallyyy foreign to me as a 3.Xe optimizer; direct damage with no status effect riders seems to generally be one of the least important things a Wizard or Sorcerer can be doing with their spells (look at my list for example).
If you kill something, you don't need to debuff it. |
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 22:04:35
Yea, well, I mean *culturally*, where did that idea that it's most fun, or ideal, or best, or is the first solution to blast things come from, with this group? Where did the tradition amongst players come from? That's a big part of what I was asking. Was blasting MUCH stronger in 2e, for example?
That's not to say that blasting can't be an optimal choice -- it just takes some work. See the Mailman, a 3.5e blasting build.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19868534/The_Mailman:_A_Direct_Damage_Sorcerer |
| Dracons |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 21:58:42
Because some people play DnD not to be a god and doing status effects or buffing or charming on people, but to see them burn under a fireball. To bring down a metero to crushed the bug that dared looked at the mighty wizard wrong.
Is it optimize to do so? Not always.
Some optimizers only have fun if they're the absoulte best and no-one can hurt him, not even the DM.
Some non-optimizers only have fun if they're smashing peoople left and right, or winning the princess heart or whatnot.
All players however, have fun if they're playing and doing what they want their characters to do. If this means they'll choose a super enlarged omega fireball against the Red Dragon and his orc minions? So be it. They have fun.
Also: Thanks Arik... coming from you, that is the hugest compliment. I've read alot of your posts. I'd love to be a player if you ever DM. Cept I doubt I could ever be worthy of it :) |
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 21:53:42
One thing I've noticed as odd here...
People here seem to really really like the idea that Arcane spells are best used to deal damage.
Where does this idea come from? It is... reaallyyy foreign to me as a 3.Xe optimizer; direct damage with no status effect riders seems to generally be one of the least important things a Wizard or Sorcerer can be doing with their spells (look at my list for example). |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 17:57:10
quote:
Dracons
I made soo many with my 9th level elf wizard. He was an ex slave of a Thayian wizard, and stole his traveling spellbook. It's how I became a wizard.
I really like Valice's Electric Hoop, though they're all good.
It seems unlikely that Valice would have learned magic that way in my Realms ... my Red Wizards have long ago devised a paranoid way to protect their magic by writing their spell formula in an "encrypted" Thayan script (much like illusionists write their magic in Ruathlek). A 1st level Read Red Magic spell is required; using the "normal" Read Magic spell only gives one a headache. Of course not every wizard in Thay is a Red Wizard. |
| Dracons |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 05:34:32
I loved spell creation. I made soo many with my 9th level elf wizard. He was an ex slave of a Thayian wizard, and stole his traveling spellbook. It's how I became a wizard.
During my travels, I helped with a dwarven community. Problem was, since it was mostly mining, they never saw the need for bathing so they all stunk. So my very first spell I ever created, a zero level spell, was Valice's Protection from Stench. Immunity to bad nonmagical smells, and a +2 to saving throws for stuff that was magical or supernatural such as Trog's stench ability.
During my long days there, I also made another zero level spell that allowed me to never be intoxated during the duration of the spell. I amazed many dwarves there with my amazing ability to consume large amounts of alchol.
Once I became friends with a pirate, who taught me about tripping and climb, I used his skills in my spell research. Using aerodynmaics and miminc, I made it so I can use a range trip attack using my caster level for my attack bonus with intelligence instead of strength bonus. It was only within twenty feeet though, and they got to use a reflex to dodge first. Nonetheless, Valice's Range Trip was my first successful selfcreated combat spell I used, and I even got to use it against a thayan attack wizard.
Most of my second level spells were basically crap. I was still learning in my life. So I won't post them here...
It was third level... where many of my best spells came forward.
Valice's Elemental Missiles (Much like Magic Missiles, but you could choose Acid, Cold, Fire, Electricty, or Sonic instead per missile.
Valice's Electric Hoop. A ranged grapple spell that used my caster level plus intelligence mod instead of base plus strength. I could concentrate it as a free action, and it dealt 1d4 per 2 levels (max 3d4) per round in electricty damage.
Valice's Burning Path: A ray type spell. It dealt 1d6 per caster level, max out at 5d6 in all it's path of sixty feet. An added bonus was that I would teleport to the end of the path where it ended. (I made this spell before the electric version came out. Hilarious to our group).
I loved role playing the spell reserach. From buying several copies of magic missile and linking any cause of element from other spells to be added to it, using an enlarged burning ray spell with dimenion door... ahh fun times of roleplaying spell creation. Then to have the spells... to selll your spells, then to see other users use the very same spell you made.
It warms my heart to see new players choosing my spell when they gained a level or bought the scrool, even if they themselves never met Valice. |
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 01:30:36
Accidental double post |
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 01:30:13
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
While alot of those spells on there are good, I wouldn't necessarily call them overpowered. Overpowered, to me, are spells like Wraithstrike or effects that mimic high-powerd weapon/armor enhancements with low level spells. I encourage wizards to utilize their spells in unique and smart ways. Also, alot of those spells are used out side of combat and that's fine with me.
The reason I chose those spells is because most of them basically SOLVE encounters, in one casting, or do things that melee focused characters can't do, or make certain tactics that nonspellcasting guys focus in (locks, for example, supposed to be the rogue's specialty, or grappling with freedom of movement) completely obsolete, or able to both solve encounters with a wave of their hand rather than any effort, or if they want to they can do the core competency of nonspellcasters better than the nonspellcasters themselves (with buffs and shapechanges and summons), or completely ignore certain threat categories (like with flying, for example...), and basically meaning that, if there is an intelligently played wizard in the party, having a fighter around which you are responsible fore is a *drain on his resources*, and it'd work better if you just had a party of spellcasting-focused classes, so they would be able to keep up... Like, the idea that the group would have to actually WALK anywhere is pretty laughable past level 6 or so..
Basically, I'm saying these break the game because, if played intelligently, they make what is supposed to be a cooperative game where the fighter fights, the rogue sneaks, the cleric heals, and the wizard blasts *completely break down*. Instead, it's a game where they just divine the location of the big bad guys, buff to the gills, teleport into his sanctum, the Wizard casts a battlefield control spell negating most of the enemies, the Druid is wild shaped into some obscenely powerful creature and annihilates the bbeg in melee, the cleric has lots of buff up and wades into battle like onto a god, and they take 18 seconds to solve whatever issue is at hand and then teleport out. And whenever they come up with a problem of a weird sort that needs solving, they just pull one of their more obscure superpowers out of a scroll, cast something that solves the problem, and move on.
This requires... certain types of DMs to really handle this, and someone who really wants to use their superpowers in a high powered class (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) to solve problems rather than going through the linear trudging that many campaigns have really, really disruptive. It's also really disruptive to campaign settings as they are published, too, especially when there are dozens of ways to break the economy of any given area by the rules.
Also, you don't need any more books than the PHB, and maybe the Monster Manual (if you are using a Druid) to do any of this stuff. Splatbooks just mean you can do it quicker, earlier, or more easily. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 16 Nov 2010 : 16:59:49
Actually, researching existing spells is the time-honoured method of getting a chance at a formula that may otherwise never come your way. Also good for exceeding the "max spells per level" limiter; it is (or was) the in-game rationale for guys like Elminster knowing basically every spell in the book rather than a paltry 18 per spell level or whatever.
Spell research is very much overlooked; players at many tables mysteriously think it's unthinkable to do anything of the sort until their wizards hit umpteenth level, or maybe they want to deck out the ultimate high tech lab and library instead of reading through scribbled napkin notes by candlelight at a folding desk. Experienced players don't need experienced characters to start hitting the books and getting good results. Failure simply means you wait until your next level up before trying again, something that happens more frequently in the formative years.
lol, if you think random spell generation tables can be bad, just try looking up wild magic tables instead. I've always used exactly one table - something happens, gets scribbled off, and the "intended" spell takes its place on the chart for next time that number gets rolled. Wild enough for me. |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 16 Nov 2010 : 15:30:09
Interesting thread. I have not played in 3E or any later editions (still stuck in 2.75), and by coincidence, I've done a bit of thinking on this one in the last couple of weeks (I am creating documents grouping my myriad spells gleaned from numerous netbooks etc. with the spells from the Wizard's Spell Compendium and other published sources). W
hat I noticed in the netbooks (in particular the Great Net Spell Book) is how many variants you can get on a different spell that are very similar but not identical (variant magic missile or fire/ lightning/ cold/ acid/ heat/ force/ light/ poison / energy ball / bolt / cone / hand / ray / pyramid / polyhedron / storm / cloud anyone?).
Back in 2E (and 1E) there was a rule that stated that a wizard gains a spell of a level he, she, or it can cast when they gain an experience level. The rationale behind it, as I understood it, was that wizards gained this spell through research (rather than being entitled to "find" it), which they supposedly conduct on a semi-continuous basis. I never applied this rule, on the general assumption that they either had to research it properly (using one of the systems provided in one variety or the other of the rules, which always involved a lot of money and time invested, and a pretty good chance of failure), or find one in a spellbook.
I am actually thinking of allowing wizards to gain a spell on each experience level and, shock, horror, gasp (I surprised myself), I would allow access to the rare spells for this purpose. My reasoning is something along these lines: if this spell per experience level is based on the notion that wizards engage in research all the time anyway, they should be able to come up with, well, anything. Including rare or very rare and even, why not, unique spells.
My take on it is that a wizard may not necessarily be looking to research The Symbul's synostodweomer, but that they decide on an effect they want to achieve (transform memorised spells into healing energy, in this particular case), and they achieve that effect (and "create" the spell for themselves). I would mitigate the freedom of choice a bit by requiring the wizard to pick his "next level-up spell" at the time he is just beginning to climb the XP ranks to that next level. E.g., a wizard who has just made 3rd level of experience, would have to state which spell he was aiming at for 4th level of experience.
As for finding spells (in other wizards' spellbooks, scrolls, etc.), I would still maintain the distinction between common / uncommon / rare / very rare / unique that was systemised in the Wizard / Priest Spell Compendium.
Ordinary spell research (the one that costs time, money, etc.) would still be allowed, and might allow a player character to obtain a spell (or to "create a spell that would have the desired effect").
I'm still wrestling with the issue on how to separate player knowledge from character knowledge, i.e., a player with access to the rulebooks might know of the existence of Elminster's Effulgent Epuration, and would know that such an effect can be achieved, whereas a character may not be aware of that. The only thing I've come up with until know would be a Knowledge (theory of magic) skill, that the character had to succeed a check against to come up with the possibility of a spell. The difficulty of the check might be increased for the more exotic spells, but could (over time) be compensated by dedicating skill points to said skill.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Nov 2010 : 14:41:22
quote:
Originally posted by Gavinfoxx
The problem with the rules on the size of communities, in 3.xe at least, means that in any relatively large community, a Wizard can get access to pretty much any scroll they couldever want; they don't take into account the rarity of items, just the cost. As if there weren't useful, cheap to buy on a scroll, utterly unbalanced spells of low spell level...
Yea, a city like Melvaunt (one they'll definitly visit) would probably have lots of spells that normally wouldn't be accessable through research or on a random wizard. I could still limit the spell selection on non-core/PH2 spells and mark up the price of those spells. Spells with wizard's specific names in them would still be considered rare, regardless of level.
quote:
Originally posted by Gavinfoxx
If you REALLY want to balance the game -- in any edition before 4th -- you are going to have to really know which particular spells, of each and every level, are heavily overpowered, and simply make those spells really really rare, or impossible to get. This, unfortunately, removes staple spells from player hands, like in 3rd edition, for WIZARDS ALONE, from PHB ALONE, from UNDER FOURTH LEVEL SPELLS, you'd be removing things like Grease, Stinking Cloud, Solid Fog, Color Spray, Glitterdust, Web, Dimension Door, Black Tentacles, Enlarge Person, Anything that summons anything, Rope Trick, Alter Self, Knock, Slow, Fly, Shrink Item, Greater Magic Weapon, Polymorph, Stone Shape, Detect Thoughts, Locate Object, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Protection from Arrows, Explosive Runes, Floating Disk, Locate Creature, Wind Wall, Wall of Ice, Wall of Fire, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, Enervation, Scare, Silent Image, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Minor Image, Blur, Displacement, Major Image, Shadow Conjuration, and Greater Invisibilty. And I'm sure I missed some. Basically, if you don't want an intelligently played Wizard to completely obsolete the Fighter, the Rogue, the Paladin, the Ranger, and the Monk, you need to absolutely massacre his spell list!
While alot of those spells on there are good, I wouldn't necessarily call them overpowered. Overpowered, to me, are spells like Wraithstrike or effects that mimic high-powerd weapon/armor enhancements with low level spells. I encourage wizards to utilize their spells in unique and smart ways. Also, alot of those spells are used out side of combat and that's fine with me.
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
To answer this requires just a bit of common sense, really. Any spells in the PHB would "mostly" be considered common, though the higher level ones would almost by definition be somewhat rarer, simply because fewer wizards reach those levels to learn and cast them. So you could say that anything below 5th level would be common, 5th-7th level uncommon, and everything else would be rare. For all other sourcebooks, use the same general method, though any spell with someone's name in it should be considered rare or unique by default, unless it has been around for a VERY long time. (MOST of the Bigby spells or Mordenkainen or Tenser spells fall into this category. Obviously, there are exceptions for the more obscure and less-known ones, like "Bigby's Bookworm Bane".)
I like this system. It's pretty simple yet I can add complexity where I see fit. Consider it stolen  |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 16 Nov 2010 : 09:56:23
My only issue with 3E is that the players all become blurry versions of each other. No warrior worth his hit points can resist picking up a couple of levels as a minor-class spellcaster or rogue to gain a combat advantages and some added versatility. No rogue is content with just thief skills when he can augment them hugely with minor-class spell use or bigger damage. No wizard wants to stay wimpy forever when he can become a minor-class swordsman and hold his own on the front line. Everybody's hit points and combat bonuses just keep on adding up. Then they all copy each other's spellbooks. They really just become versions of the same photocopied character with different backgrounds and emphasis. The streamlining adds a tremendous amount of coolness but at the cost of taking away a little (or a lot) of what makes each character special. |
| Sandro |
Posted - 16 Nov 2010 : 08:28:01
quote:
Originally posted by Gavinfoxx
Well, 2e had that weird "Wizards tend to be lower level than a fighter thing for a long time" 'balance' thing, and a different concept of 'balance' than 3e has. 3e has, in a fairly core part of its concept that, "Characters should generally be the same ECL, and contribute equally to solve encounters, each in their own way, which helps the group as a whole, and they shouldn't be stepping on other character's toes, and everyone should be needed to overcome issues and solve problems."
The problem with 3.Xe is that it fails miserably at doing this. Wizards, straight out of the gate, have too many "I Win" buttons -- and it only gets worse as they level.
Look at the Tier threads if you are interested in some 3.Xe theory. It's interesting.
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0
Of course 2E doesn't have the same idea that characters should be exactly of equal power all the time. It has the idea, mostly, as near as I can tell, "For the some of the campaign, some characters should outshine others. For other parts of the campaign, different characters should outshine others. Balance is maintained this way."
Perhaps it's my multiple re-readings of the Dragonlance Chroniclestrilogy, but I've always favoured the dynamic balance concept: a low level wizard should be weak, hiding behind the fighters and other bulkier characters, augmenting their spells with crossbows and weak pokes from their daggers. This is, of course, offset by the huge power they gain later, when it's the fighters who are always in the way of their fireballs and other combat spells. Of course, this means that only patient players will play wizards, which makes sense, as only wizards are meant to be the patient type. In real life not everyone advances at the same rate or always contributes at the same level, so why should D&D work like that?
Not saying that's any better than the other way, just my personal preference. |
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 16 Nov 2010 : 08:12:06
Well, 2e had that weird "Wizards tend to be lower level than a fighter thing for a long time" 'balance' thing, and a different concept of 'balance' than 3e has. 3e has, in a fairly core part of its concept that, "Characters should generally be the same ECL, and contribute equally to solve encounters, each in their own way, which helps the group as a whole, and they shouldn't be stepping on other character's toes, and everyone should be needed to overcome issues and solve problems."
The problem with 3.Xe is that it fails miserably at doing this. Wizards, straight out of the gate, have too many "I Win" buttons -- and it only gets worse as they level.
Look at the Tier threads if you are interested in some 3.Xe theory. It's interesting.
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0
Of course 2E doesn't have the same idea that characters should be exactly of equal power all the time. It has the idea, mostly, as near as I can tell, "For the some of the campaign, some characters should outshine others. For other parts of the campaign, different characters should outshine others. Balance is maintained this way." |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 16 Nov 2010 : 07:04:51
quote:
Originally posted by Gavinfoxx
The problem with the rules on the size of communities, in 3.xe at least, means that in any relatively large community, a Wizard can get access to pretty much any scroll they couldever want; they don't take into account the rarity of items, just the cost. As if there weren't useful, cheap to buy on a scroll, utterly unbalanced spells of low spell level...
If you REALLY want to balance the game -- in any edition before 4th -- you are going to have to really know which particular spells, of each and every level, are heavily overpowered, and simply make those spells really really rare, or impossible to get. This, unfortunately, removes staple spells from player hands, like in 3rd edition, for WIZARDS ALONE, from PHB ALONE, from UNDER FOURTH LEVEL SPELLS, you'd be removing things like Grease, Stinking Cloud, Solid Fog, Color Spray, Glitterdust, Web, Dimension Door, Black Tentacles, Enlarge Person, Anything that summons anything, Rope Trick, Alter Self, Knock, Slow, Fly, Shrink Item, Greater Magic Weapon, Polymorph, Stone Shape, Detect Thoughts, Locate Object, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Protection from Arrows, Explosive Runes, Floating Disk, Locate Creature, Wind Wall, Wall of Ice, Wall of Fire, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, Enervation, Scare, Silent Image, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Minor Image, Blur, Displacement, Major Image, Shadow Conjuration, and Greater Invisibilty. And I'm sure I missed some. Basically, if you don't want an intelligently played Wizard to completely obsolete the Fighter, the Rogue, the Paladin, the Ranger, and the Monk, you need to absolutely massacre his spell list!
I run 2e campaigns w/some 3e rules (namely cross-classing skills, but using the 2e skill point type measurements for rogues, applied to all skills), and I actually forbid none of those spells, nor do I make them rare to find. Unless of course the PC lives in a rural area w/o any wizardly type merchant around, or if the PC doesn't live in a 'free' land.
Using the Baldur's Gate II spellbook, the 'low-level' (1-4) spells that are rare or hard to obtain in my homebrew are:
-Find Familiar, as I don't think all wizards are capable of binding such a creature to their various wills. At least not until the wizard gets relatively powerful, say about 7th level.
-Hold Undead, as I figure the necromancers who create undead wouldn't want the arcane (non-divine) secrets of how to hold such creatures to be mainstream knowledge.
-Melf's Minute Meteors, as this is a fantastically powerful spell that can even bypass a creature's magic resistance. I figure wizards would be busy advocating those who've heard of this spell (and thus seek it out) to juss focus on honing their skills w/Lightning Bolt 
-Skull Trap, as the wizard w/this spell in their book is eventually capable of doing damage that only 7th-level and above spells can do (wheres Fireball, of the same level as Skull Trap, caps out at 10d6 dmg; and most prepared mages of certain accomplishments always have anti-fire spells at the ready). Wizards are secretive by nature, so there's no way this spell becomes mainstream knowledge, outside of myth and such...though the other end of the spectrum would be the braggarts among the profession that show up at the mage fairs, of course!
-Farsight. I make this spell be rare for both arcane and divine spellcasters, as I have a hard time fully comprehending the logic of how arcane magicks can duplicate this traditionally divine spell. And I reckon a deity that can grant this spell would very much seek to know what the patron who wants this spell, is ultimately made of.
-Minor Sequencer, Spell Sequencer, and Spell Trigger, as anything that can cast multiple spells AND remove the casting time needed would be a guarded secret indeed.
-Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, as there's a dialogue in Neverwinter Nights' Official Campaign that says this is a rare spell, and I incorporate that in my homebrew......and have thus applied the same principles to the same spells I've written in this list I'm making, and trying to give backstories as to the reasons behind it all. 
|
|
|
