How are you dealing with Miasma?

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

Sorry if this has been asked recently, I haven't gotten to read as much lately as I would like

How is everyone dealing with the Spell Miasma from MotW? At first our DM ruled that choking that the spell causes renders the subject incapable of action, but this is obviously too powerful for a fourth level spell, since it is almost guranteed to kill the subject. I suggested that the subject can still act as long as they can hold their breath. Still the spell appears to be somewhat powerful, since it seems like the spell almost gurantees death. For example:

Our Druid is 8th level. She casts Miasma on a subject and it lasts for 40 rounds. Let's just assume the target has a 15 Constitution (not too shabby). He can hold his breath and (under my suggestion) act normally for 30 rounds. Rounds 31-40 he has to make constitution checks, with the last one being DC 20. The penalty of failure is death! Not to mention he only has to roll poorly on one of those 10 saves and he's a gonner!

Now I realize that this is a 4th level spell and that there are other, more instantly lethal, spells of that level: Phantasmal Killer comes to mind. But none of them seem as assured as Miasma.

Is there something I'm missing?

Thanks!

 

[DarkJester]

We gave it a fort save to negate. If you fail,your just going to have to get someone to dispel it....Or hope you can hold your breath for a long time...

 

[Magus_Jerel]

I don't allow these "class books" - better to call em "splatbooks"...
How to munchkinize your Druid, Wizard, Cleric, Fighter... ect. (dependent on the book)

miasma = case and point when it comes to MotW

 

[Orco42]

I allow it as it. It takes a while rounds to kill.

It is not much worse than a double extendend creeping cold which is the same level.

Plus an ioun stone makes you immune to Miasma.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I like the save to negate the whole thing in the begining idea. But so far, my habit is any spell I think is too good like miasma(and including about a dozen PH spells), I don't allow in at all. I allow the players to use the basic idea of the spell for spell research. And if they come up with a version I like I'll let it in the game as a spell they researched.(when I'm feeling incredibly proactive I may get off my butt and make a version I like myself, and introduce it as treasure a wizard scroll, or lost teachings of X church for example) My general rule for all cleric and druid new spells even if I don't have a problem with them is basically the same thing but I let them to research the exact spell in the book. I refuse to let clerics and druids jump in power with huge numbers of new spells which they auto know, and I also refuse to allow players to cherry pick the best spells from the splat books, and the PH by the option some use of letting them replace a spell from the PH list with one of the new ones.

 

[Petrosian]

i added a fort save to negate. this turns it into a spell along the level of offensive poly other, fort save or die slowly.

As for aplatbooks, in general, from what i see they have a slightly higher "what were they thinking" percentage than the core three but not much. As such i do not have any problem adding them in.

In general we have gained very useful and interesting things from the class books.

you just have to apply the same read through you did the core books.

The faerun stuff... thats a little more dubious but since we do not play realms yet. it is not an issue.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

PHB - What were they thinking error percentage... 3%

DMG - What were they thinking error percentage ... 6%

MM - What were they thinking error percentage ... 10%

Splatbook what were they thinking error percentage...
50% or higher.

IMHO - "slightly higher" just isn't the word for it.

 

[kreynolds]

PHB - What were they thinking error percentage... 3%

DMG - What were they thinking error percentage ... 6%

MM - What were they thinking error percentage ... 10%

Splatbook what were they thinking error percentage...
50% or higher.

IMHO - "slightly higher" just isn't the word for it.

They may only seem that bad to you though. Me, I dig the splat books for one very simple reason: They're different. Believe me, the last thing that I want to happen is for me to get bored of the game. The splat books add a lot of flavor to the game.

As far as spells go, yeah, they can be wierd. But where everything else is concerned, I see the "what were they thinking" factor as damn near nil. Besides, I'm constantly making new spells, prestige classes, and magic items, so I guess I'm just as bad as the splat books. Just my opinion though.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

But so far, my habit is any spell I think is too good like miasma(and including about a dozen PH spells), I don't allow in at all. I allow the players to use the basic idea of the spell for spell research. And if they come up with a version I like I'll let it in the game as a spell they researched.(when I'm feeling incredibly proactive I may get off my butt and make a version I like myself, and introduce it as treasure a wizard scroll, or lost teachings of X church for example)

What spells and why? - maybe I can give you a few versions to "House errata" like polymorph other.

I refuse to let clerics and druids jump in power with huge numbers of new spells which they auto know, and I also refuse to allow players to cherry pick the best spells from the splat books, and the PH by the option some use of letting them replace a spell from the PH list with one of the new ones.
[/query]

And you wonder why I say the wizard isn't the most powerful class in the game as written...

My general rule for all new cleric and druid spells even if I don't have a problem with them is basically the same thing but I let them to research the exact spell in the book.

gee... somebody who agrees with My sentiments...
The blasted problem is when the smart ass cleric has a zealous horde doing research - and the horde shares the information...
Don't ya just hate sects of zealous priests run by PCs?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I'll admit some of my problem sells have really simple solutions, but I feel like being a jerk and insist they research it instead of applying my simple fix.

Flamestrike doesn't follow divine damage guidlines. Once you accept one exception to the rules, more exceptions will follow/

Blade barrier same as above.

Storm of vengence same as above, though since this is a 9th level spell you can't just bump it up levels. It has to be nerfed.

Fire storm, too much damage for a shapeable AoE, and I think flat out too much damage for an AoE divine spell for druids.

Shapechange, way to broad, and capable of doing millions of d6 in damage if not more by flying over head and turning into extremely large inamimate objects like a block of granite about 200' on a side.

poly any same as shapechange

Wall of force, the no save part.

chain lighting too low level. My system is since they have a d6 range that spans two levels for both single target an AoE then special doodads like chain for a single target spell or shaping an AoE should be on the higher end of that two level range. 20d6 at 6th level is low end of 20d6 single target for arcane wizards.

I have some more but my list isn't in front of me so this is all I can remember now.