NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kae'Yoss" data-source="post: 1067602" data-attributes="member: 4134">Yes, of course. DM's make usual mistakes. Plus, they often don't want to be to nasty (of course, there are a exceptions - some of these post regularly here <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />)I have no problem if 1st-level spells don't scale well. Spells of 2nd and 3rd level also have limits to their scalability (fireball and 10d6 max and so on). It's part of the power scaleNo. I meant that Deep Slumber should be named according to the naming conventions, e.g. name it Greater Sleep.I then said that I like those conventions.At least I meant it that way <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I didn't like the idea to remove the cap totally and "balance" the spell by using more enemies that are immune to sleep. If we had to tailor our campaign to single 1st-level spells to create a balance, we would probably need an expensive and complex bit of software to do that. Fairly general stuff like energy types, sneak attack and crits are OK. Single spells aren't (there are over 500 spells in the core rules alone)Ah. OK. My bad. It's just that 3e sleep could have done the same (when the enemies fail their saves, that is)Well, sleep is a something like a mook sweeper at higher levels - affecting 4 1hd-mooks. For the simple shopkeep - who can be as much as an Expert 4 - it's enough. And think of the possibilities Quicken Spell offers you with that spell.You forgot resistance to energy. It could use a little tone-down, but I think it's something I can live with - after all, there are other spells with almost-guaranteed damage (the "ref half" spells for example. You need evasion or good protection from that element to avoid that damage. SR almost always works, of course)Because this is about as bad as the old hold person, maybe even worse: If you are a wiz 20, and a party of 4 level 20 characters, all will have to make that save or fall asleep. That save DC can be quite high even if it's only a 1st-level spell. And then they're as good as dead, for you can CdG them at your leasure.When do you fight more than a handful of characters (and I mean strong characters), anyway? You'll almost always affect the high-level guys.Let me get that straight: What DMs did you advice to use monsters to nerve the spell: Those who use the 3.0 version or those who use your version?If it's those who use your version: This version would be broken, not  "a perfectly usable spell that present no problems whatsoever", no matter how competent that DM is. Heck, I'd get quicken spell and load my 5th-level slots with that spell (or get a lesser rod of quicken. Or two). This way I'd have one additional attempt to get the enemy per round for several rounds. Face it: this is a save-or-die spell. Even if you don't actually die, you're out of the fight, for long enough for an enemy to slit your throat. For exactly that reason they have changed the hold spells.</blockquote>

Verification