I've got the D&D Spell Compendium- Any questions?

[Truth Seeker]

Oh yes it does, especially when Vampires cross their path...hehehehehe

Well it gives druids somthing to fight with. I remember how in 3.0 there was a druid spell that was a version of entangle or web that was done with thorns and so did damage. It was very overpowered. However the reason it was made was because at the time the druid characters did not have a big whack em spell.

Aaron.

 

[Vanye]

36d6 damage from a 2nd level spell, at 12th level? THAT'S new and different.
There are more spells like this in this new Spell Compendium?

No need. That's just the PHB SCORCHING RAY spell...

 

[rvalle]

Rumour (we all know how reliable that is) was that Amazon gets the books from WotC later to keep the FLGSs from being totally undercut. I know that before 3.5 came out, Amazon was getting them at the same time as the FLGSs.

You know, if that is the case I don't mind. I'd rather buy from my local game store but right now I have more time then money (at least I hope I do. ).

rv

 

[Glyfair]

I noticed the spellbook archive from the WOTC website is one of the sources. Just out of curiosity, did they include my Thieving Arrow from those articles? I am assuming they did not since they never contacted me to reprint that spell. Then again, I'm not sure they even needed to contact me since it was a contest submission :\

I don't see it. It's not listed in the "renamed spells" section, either, so I'd assume it wasn't included.

 

[Staffan]

36d6 damage from a 2nd level spell, at 12th level? THAT'S new and different.
There are more spells like this in this new Spell Compendium?

That's on a crit. The base damage is 4d6 at 3rd level, 4d6+4d6 at 7th, and 4d6+4d6+4d6 at 11th. Since they've apparently changed it so it only does double damage on a crit, it would be a maximum damage of 24d6 - and that would require three attack rolls of 18-20 followed by confirmation rolls that hit. Also, DR applies separately to each bolt - shoot it at a devil with DR 10/good, and it becomes MUCH less impressive (4d6-10 three times).

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I finely got a chance to read the spell compendium version of this spell. I will agree that it its alittle bit better then a scorching ray now. It has no spell resistence now. Most of the broken spells were fixed and wotc really put good work into this book, so i am going to trust them that this spell is balanced with other level 2 spells the wizard and sorcerer gets in this book.

 

[MerricB]

Re: Splinterbolt

I finely got a chance to read the spell compendium version of this spell. I will agree that it its alittle bit better then a scorching ray now. It has no spell resistence now. Most of the broken spells were fixed and wotc really put good work into this book, so i am going to trust them that this spell is balanced with other level 2 spells the wizard and sorcerer gets in this book.

Although no SR, it does have Damage Reduction affecting it and needs a ranged attack roll rather than a ranged touch attack.

Cheers!

 

[JustKim]

Sarcophagus of stone is missing a large part of its entry. Here's the rest of it from Dragon 313..

Level: Clr 6
Components: V, S, M, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: 1 Medium or smaller creature

 

[SteveC]

Quill Blast has been changed. The number of quills per size category is now a fixed number, with the highest being 12 for huge+ creatures, and the penalty to attack rolls, saves, and checks is noncumulative. Spikes no longer stacks with other crit range enhancers like Improved Critical.

-Mara

Spikes also only lasts one round per level now. It went from being something my spirit shaman always had active to a throw-away. I think the balance for most of the spells that people have had the most complaints with has been corrected. At least I looked at the ones that I had the most problems with and they had been...dealt with. For what that's worth, anyway.

--Steve

 

[beaver1024]

It's a standard rule regarding spells. But one that most authors don't take into account when balancing spells.

I house rule that all physical damage incurred by spells is treated as "magic" as well as any alignment descriptors the spell has, and is affected by DR appropriately. Coupled with the intention of boosting spells that this significantly weakens (but I have yet to see one.)

Can you please give me a quote on this? Where does the standard rule say that spells are subject to DR? I thought the general rule was spell damage are not subject to DR unless the spell specifically says so. Just because a spell says that it is of a material type doesn't make it automatically subject to DR.