Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 463190" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think it was a good point, but I really don't have the energy to argue this again.  ashockney made a thoughtful post, but essentially he wants to reduce or elimenate the ability of a single spell to dramatically alter a combat.  He takes essentially every popular spell and suggests bumping up the level because he says, even if they were of higher level, they would still be taken - which is true.  He acts as if this is proof that they need to be higher level.It's not.The only thing that it proves is that the power of a spell caster is dependent upon the spells that are provided to them.  By bumping up the spells a level or two, you basically say 'A spell caster of X level should only be as powerful as a spell caster of X-2 level (or some such)'.   I would argue that any spell which is taken regularly would continue to be taken no matter its level if no other spell existed of the same or lower level which replaced it.  This is simply because spells that are taken regularly are taken regularly because they fulfill a niche that nothing else does.   If 'Dispel Magic' was a 9th level spell, would you take it?  If 'Greater Dispel' or something similar didn't exist, then yes you'd take it in a heart beat.   You'd probably be looking forward to it as much as any other 9th level spell.   Does this mean 'Dispel Magic' is broken as a 3rd level spell?He is essentially rebalancing the spells for a lower magic campaign, and decreasing the utility of spellcasters.Also, he has a tendancy to look at spells solely from a 'PC perspective'.  The best spells for a PC to throw at an NPC are not necessarily the best spells for a NPC to throw at a PC.  NPC's who intend to survive have to worry about chipping away at PC defences and getting in and out.  An NPC throws 'Feeblemind' instead of 'Hold Person', because the effect is permenent and requires a significant resource investment to cure.  The NPC may find 'Hold Person' useful, but they still have the rest of the party to deal with and probably will need to flee at some point to challenge the party at a latter point.   The PC's figure that if the Hold Person works, the fight is over and one villain can be chalked off the list.Personally, I think that AoE damaging type spells are not all that big of a deal anymore.   Monster HP's have increased, saving throws are often easier (unless the wizard really focuses, and in that case Evocation isn't necessarily the best school to focus in), and damage has been capped.   Gone are the days when 20th level wizards fireball would kill virtually every creature that failed its saving throw.   I'm not sure that if I played a wizard, especially a Twink Wizard, that I'd ever memorize fireball.  When I twink out my NPC Wizards, I'm often inclined to drop Evocation as a school entirely.And I've been playing this game for too long to worry about levitate, fly, invisibility, teleport and the like as being game breaking.   Heck, we might as well mention Tensor's Floating Disk and Unseen Servant in the same breath, as every experienced Wizard player worth his salt know how to use these to 'frustrate' a DM.</blockquote>

Verification