Big Ol' Version O' Bull's Strength

[kreynolds]

The sole reason is so you can scale it infinitely?

If you consider that a bad thing, perhaps you should ban the standard versions from your games.

You don't think that's kind of poor design?

Nope.

I mean, that's kind of designing a spell just so you can break it.

Break it? Hmmm....interesting. Then I guess the standard versions are broken as well? I'm having trouble following your line of reasoning.

Quite simply, I thought it would be interesting to have higher level versions of the spells for high level games, primarily epic level games. When you have spell slots for 10th to 16th level spells, they would be a good spell to fill them with using metamagic. Also, a higher level version of Bull's Strength could be used to make some interesting magic items. But these spells would be just as useful in a non-epic level game.

As was mentioned earlier, though you might have missed it, you could get roughly the same bonus of 4d4+4 using a multi-empowered Bull's Strength. So, those higher level spell slots would still be useful with the standard spells and empower spell. However, it doesn't end there.

Metamagic is useful for increasing the power of a given spell, but it isn't the end of the road. Metamagic is useful when you don't want to bother researching a higher level spell, but it was never intended to halt the development of higher level spells. There is nothing preventing you from simply researching a higher level spell instead of taking the Empower Spell feat.

To suggest otherwise would imply that higher level versions of spells simply cannot be researched, because that's what the Empower Spell feat is for. That's a really thin argument, and serves no other purpose than to stifle creativity and force players into taking a feat that they may not wish to purchase.

Metamagic is a work-around when you don't want to develop a new spell. Development of a new spell is a work-around when you don't want to bother taking a metamagic feat. Empower is faster and costs no gold or XP. Development is slower, costs gold and XP, but doesn't force you to burn a precious feat.

 

[da chicken]

Break it? Hmmm....interesting. Then I guess the standard versions are broken as well? I'm having trouble following your line of reasoning.

Because you should make the spell itself scale, not make it scalable only with metamagic.

In theory you've designed a spell that has a fixed power level, rather than a scaling power level. In theory, that should make the spell less powerful, and therefore a lower level. Additionally, a variable effect is also generally less powerful than a flat bonus, which should also, in theory, make the spell less powerful and a lower level.

However, because of the manner you limited the spell, which is using fixed dice instead of a flat bonus, you've actually made the spell more powerful.

I understand that you're talking that fact into account, and that's one reason why I said it doesn't really matter. Still, I find the design of the spell to be against my vision of the spirit of the rules. That doesn't matter either, really, because it isn't my spell.

As far as the standard versions, no, I would not consider Empower Spell to break them. The math of (1d4+1)*1.5 for +2 levels (3-7.5 instead of 2-5) is much, much worse than 5d4*1.5 for +2 levels (7.5-30 instead of 5-20).

 

[Metalsmith]

There it is. It has been suggested that the duration be set to 1 round/level, which I wouldn't really have a problem with. What does everyone else think?

Bah.
I (if I were a spellcaster) would never take it. You're better off Maxing and 2x Empowering a Bulls Strength for a +10 Bonus for an Hour a Level, than an Average of +13 for a Minute a Level.
A +1 more to Hit and Damage and Strength Checks isn't that great compared to, Damm Near, all day long duration.

Shure you could Maximize it as a 12th Level spell for +20 but the other guy for the same spell slots is better off extending it so he doesn't need to cast it as often. Better yet cast it on 5 other people and extend it.

Metalsmith

 

[kreynolds]

Still, I find the design of the spell to be against my vision of the spirit of the rules.

What exactly is your vision of the spirit of the rules then? If you could explain that, perhaps we'll make some forward progress here.

That doesn't matter either, really, because it isn't my spell.

Of course it matters. I asked for opinions, and yours is worth just as much as everyone else's.

 

[reiella]

I think prolly 9th works a bit.

It's more focused than Tenser's Transformation.
It doesn't have the stupid magic potion component, however.
It also boosts the stats by a large margin.

What I see as 'nice' however. is the average +7 to setting DCs (and such a huge enhancement bonus that trumps most all other epic stat boosting for a while ~+14) for combat for Loki's Cunning. Not too big of a problem really, unless you consider Touch a 'fixed' range (Persistant Spell + This == Ouchie).

I'd mostly go with 9th (possibly 8th, not too sure, I'm overly cautious ) for it as it does have the nice benefit of breaching 'epic' limits routinely (sure, so does Tenser's, but only by a max of 2).

Well let's see. It would really end up comparing against PAO or Iron Body at 8th, and Shapechange at 9th.

Shapechange can easily get that huge of a str bonus (and con bonus, and probably dex bonus), the only downside is that it couldn't really emulate mental stats (and it has a 1,500 gp component).

PAO does grant Intelligence however. Without a painful component.

I'd say it compares fairly well against PAO. Go with 8th. 9th if you want to be cautious, but 8th should really work.

 

[da chicken]

What exactly is your vision of the spirit of the rules then? If you could explain that, perhaps we'll make some forward progress here.

Uh... that would take a really long time, especially since it is as much intuition and experience as it is reasoning and deduction. It's kind of like asking an Economist how much government control is desirable in business. Not to mention that I don't even have a language to discuss the ideas I would be presenting. I'll try to better explain though.

However, as it pertains to this subject, I think I outlined my reasoning in my last post. Mainly that if you want the spell to scale, do it within the spell. Empower, as I see it, is useful for making a spell exceed the level caps. For example, an Empowered fireball will do up to 15d6 damage. Yes, an Empowered bull's strength breaks that idea, but the math is so bad that it isn't a huge problem.

Off the top of my head, if I were to rewrite those spells (bull's stength, etc.) they would be +2 at 3rd with an additional +1 every three levels thereafter: +3 at 6th, +4 at 9th, +5 at 12th, and +6 (max) at 15th. I think that's a little more in line with the way the game is designed, but that's just an opinon. Make them more like greater magic weapon. GMW would be really stupid good if it gave a 1d4+1 enhancment bonus.

You see, variable numeric things should really only be applied to other variable numeric things. AC, attack bonuses, SR, saving throws, and skill checks are static (non-variable) bonuses, and things that add to them should add a static bonus. Protection from alignment shouldn't give a +1d3 bonus to AC and saves, even if that does make thematic sense for protection from law.

The only really variable effects in the game are hit points and damage rolls (including healing).

[Tangent: Note that Str vs Con really just shows that the number of blows required to kill. Assume a weapon always does average damage, and the PCs have static hp each level. We'll use longsword (4 dmg) and cleric (4 hp). Now, if the Str of the attacker and the Con of the cleric are the same, then the attacker must hit once per level of the cleric to kill him. Increasing Str reduces the number of attacks needed, and increasing Con increass the number of attacks.]

Now, I know what you're thinking. Yes, the d20 is used with saves and attacks and skill checks, but I maintain that it is used to keep the game interesting. Attack bonuses would be pretty boring if they were 10 + BAB instead of 1d20 + BAB, as the outcome of any event would be predetermined. Notice that psions use 1d20 + power level + ability mod for saving throw DCs instead of 10 + spell level + ability mod. That's kind of what I mean.

Actually, everything I listed above as static uses the d20. Maybe that's what my intuition is pointing at. The d20 is used in D&D as a percentile mechanism. Every +1 or -1 is 5%. A d20 roll always determines success/failure, not degree of success (unless you're a 16th level Monk ).

Hm. Maybe that's what I mean. Variable should imply use on the degree of success axis, and static should imply use of the success/failure axis.

So yes, I guess I do think bull's strength and it's kin are badly designed spells. That doesn't mean they're overpowered, it just means they doesn't fit within the "normal" dichotomy of the game (as I perceive it).

So how can WotC get away with bull's strength? First, the variable portion isn't very variable: 1d4+1 is a small range. Second, ability scores add +1 to die rolls for every +2 to the ability. That means that the effective variable effect of the spell is really only +1-2 or +1-3 depending on the original attribute score. Empowering it once changes that to +1-3 or +2-4, again, depending on the base attribute. [Tangent #2: Wow. Look how much better is it to Empower a 15 or 17 than a 14 or 16!] Variable portions that small are so close to being static there really isn't a discernable difference.

There are other spells like bull's strength, too, but most of them use small numbers of small dice as well (almost always d4's.). They seem to be in only a few catagories:

Hit die/level effecting: animal trance, circle of death, energy drain, enervation, hypnotic pattern, hypnotism, sleep, et al.

Summoning: Evard's black tentacles, elemental swarm, nature's ally II-IX, shambler, summon monster II-IX.

Duration: Otto's irresistable dance, Tasha's hideous laughter, cause fear, time stop.

Ability enhancment: bull's strength, cat's grace, endurance, Tenser's iransformation.

Other: mirror image, prying eyes, spell turning.

Everything else I saw used dice for some form of damage.

One spell comparison I want to make is hypnotic pattern vs rainbow pattern. They're basically the same spell, but the lower-level one uses variable numerics (2d4+level, max +10) and the other uses static (24).

Notice the number of spells which roll for hit dice. Although at higher levels they often have static effects (banishment, rainbow patern). Hit dice are weird, though. The game prefers people to use hp instead, although the two are very closely connected.

See? I told you it would be long.

Of course it matters. I asked for opinions, and yours is worth just as much as everyone else's.

All I mean is that I'm not playing with the spells, but you are. In the end, that means your opinion is necessarily more important to the discussion.

 

[kreynolds]

Not too big of a problem really, unless you consider Touch a 'fixed' range (Persistant Spell + This == Ouchie).

You would have to be epic level to pull that off, and such power at epic level is normal.

I'd mostly go with 9th (possibly 8th, not too sure, I'm overly cautious )

I'm overly cautious too. Like I said before, I'd rather it be one level too high than one level too low.

as it does have the nice benefit of breaching 'epic' limits routinely (sure, so does Tenser's, but only by a max of 2).

...or any of the multi-empowered stat boosters (bull's strength, eagle's splendor, etc), or an empowered Tenser's, Bite of the Werebear, etc, etc, etc.

This really isn't a valid argument at all. It's very easy to push a spell into what many people like to call "epic" proportions, and it's been that way since 3rd edition was released.

Go with 8th. 9th if you want to be cautious, but 8th should really work.

Thanks.

 

[kreynolds]

See? I told you it would be long.

Indeed. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

All I mean is that I'm not playing with the spells, but you are. In the end, that means your opinion is necessarily more important to the discussion.

I just didn't want you to think that I was ignoring your opinion.