Game Breaker Spells - What are they?

[Varianor Abroad]

Breaking Lord of the Iron Fortress
This only causes some minor upsets, since the adventure was somewhat scripted assuming we entered through by another way.

The "scripted" part is the real problem. Many adventures make assumptions about where and when you adventure. It's safer not to. That said, this was written early on, and I think high level adventure writing is getting better. Monte's point is well taken and should be taken by many adventure writers. It's key.

I do like the fly=concentration option. That's pretty interesting.

 

[wedgeski]

Breaking Lord of the Iron Fortress
Examples of game breaking spells from our experience.

Awesome post. This should be framed and mounted on the wall of everyone writing mid-high level adventures.

 

[senna]

To me the only spell that i think is broken and have not been mentioned is Maze. It´s not a bad spell until you realize that it disable one party member for one battle, unless he is a mage or other kind of int depending character. Very unfun for the fighter player to just roll a dice every ten minutes, and unfun for everybody else for having to fight without one of the bases covered, rendering much more dificult fights.

 

[apoptosis]

We agree on this point. My problem is dnd magic IS mundane, it IS a bonus for the most part, but a far better bonus than other classes get in many cases. Casting a spell is just like a rogue making a skill check. Sure you can't do it as often, but as levels get higher that starts to change. A wizard can cast many spells, and gets spells that become increasingly more awesome than what other classes can do.

As I said in my post, I don't mind a wizard being able to beat a lock with a spell, but in a different way than a rogue. If he has to drain lifeforce or take a long time to summon, then he's not really hindering the skill classes as much.

Strangely i think that was the advantage of the Vancian system (it became less of an advantage when the number of spells castable and ease in which player created wands and scrolls became available).

The Vancian system (while much maligned) made it less likely that the caster was going to memorize some of the skill crossover spells like knock and spider climb and certainly less likely that they would memorize these spells multiple times.

If scrolls and wands of with these spells were less common then class skills such as pick locks and climbing become more useful.

The inherent potential issues of course ended up being Wiz's who were feast or famine they ended up handily solving the problem or doing very little.

 

[Merlion]

The "problem" I think some people have is that certain spells are incompatible with their campaign setting or the tone they are seeking. You could ban these spells out-right for that, and I think that may be the best solution for your campaign. For example, getting rid of Plane Shift and Astral Journey (or whatever it's called) would keep you players on the Prime Material (except under unique "plot hooky" circumstances). That's a perfectly legitimate GM's call when designing his world/game, but that doesn't mean those spells shouldn't be in the Core Books.

I strongly agree with this, basically. The Core Rules should contain tools and spells apropriate to many different play styles, and that allow groups to recreate many different settings.

Teleportation for example...much fantasy fiction has this sort of thing, but many stories (especially those like LOTR where getting to a certain place is a big part of the point) do not.

The only caveat is that the decision of what type of game to play and what to include or disclude should, to me, be a decision by the group. As a player, if something is in core I would be slightly annoyed if the DM simply poofed it away...unless it was because it did not fit the type of game everyone collectively wished to play.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Awesome post. This should be framed and mounted on the wall of everyone writing mid-high level adventures.

Indeed. Does it make it more poignant that the author of that high level mod is Andy Colins, one of the central developers behind 4e? Either that is chalk full of "lessons learned" he's taking into 4e, or there might be problems ahead.

To be fair. Iron Fortress was a 3.0 mod. That was well towards the front of 3e's introduction. WotC designers learned a lot about high level play in 3e, they've gotten a lot of feedback on game breaking magic and well-prepared wizards.

High-level shenanigans is one reason why Living Greyhawk put in a forced-retirement for characters once characters get to 16th level.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Awesome post. This should be framed and mounted on the wall of everyone writing mid-high level adventures.

/agree

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Skill Spells:
I am all for the "skill" style spells to add bonus of one sort or another. Something along the lines of adding the caster level as a bonus and allowing "Trained" uses (or something). THat way anything the Rogue has put into the skill isn't lost, the spell can actually help the Rogue instead of replace the PC or if the Rogue isn't there that day it allows the Wizard to fill in (but not be better than the PC) and the spell scales as the caster becomes higher level.

Teleport:
I agree with most of what was said; though I'd be willing to go with a combination of predetermined locations and places the PCs have been before. This way you can teleport to major cities you've never been to before but not the BBEG's throne room and you can also teleport "home".

 

[Merlion]

Skill Spells:
I am all for the "skill" style spells to add bonus of one sort or another. Something along the lines of adding the caster level as a bonus and allowing "Trained" uses (or something). THat way anything the Rogue has put into the skill isn't lost, the spell can actually help the Rogue instead of replace the PC or if the Rogue isn't there that day it allows the Wizard to fill in (but not be better than the PC) and the spell scales as the caster becomes higher level.
".

The trouble I have with this, conceptually, especially in the case of Knock is that its rather unmagical. Usually when a mage uses magic to unlock a door, he doesnt pick the lock. He says the spell, gestures, and the locks unlock. Making it give bonuses to the skill means the wizard still has to carry lockpicks and physically unlock the lock, which I just dont care for.

Now maybe some sort of caster level check, or some other mechanic that introduces a failure chance, but still has it be a matter of magic.

Other things it doesnt matter so much. A Find Traps spells granting Search bonuses makes sense (although one that simply lets a mage know where traps are does as well.)

I am all for classes not getting their toes stepped on too much, but on the other hand magic is special, and is to some extent supposed to trump other means. The difference is, a Rogue can pick locks all day long...regardless of system, I'm sure there will be some limitations on the frequency of use of an effect like Knock.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

The trouble I have with this, conceptually, especially in the case of Knock is that its rather unmagical. Usually when a mage uses magic to unlock a door, he doesnt pick the lock. He says the spell, gestures, and the locks unlock. Making it give bonuses to the skill means the wizard still has to carry lockpicks and physically unlock the lock, which I just dont care for.

I understand where you are coming from and I agree that this should be a concern. But to me the system (so far) never specifies how the wizard uses the spell to unlock the door. A rogue uses lockpicks; a mage... I don't know... "feels" inside the lock or something. As I see it in this fasion some wizards may be better at unlocking doors than others (higher skill bonus) while still "telling the lock to open"; maybe some use the lockpicks because to "helps the concentrate" or they started out as a rogue and "old habits die hard."