I've got the D&D Spell Compendium- Any questions?

[Antara]

What about other 9 level spells? Anything truly interesting?
What about low-level divinations spells?

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

In FR, where the level of magic is a bit higher than "standard"...

<Off Topic Nitpick>
That's actually not true.

For 3.0 there was no assumption in the design process of a 'higher than standard' baseline for Forgotten Realms magic at all.

More specifically, all 3.0 Realms spells were designed specifically to update old Realms favorites to 3.0 standards, or to fill gaps in the PHB spell list. In all cases the spells so written were made to adhere to the same rules for balance that were used for the PHB spells.

Magic Items were held to the same standard of balance.
<Off Topic Nitpick>

J. Grenemyer

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Spells

I haven't really paid much attention to the 9th level spells... in 25 years of gaming I've never played a PC over 14th level.

The thing I didn't like about the Owl's Insight spell was that it established Druids as the spellcasting class whose spells can be hardest to resist. It seems like this would have been more appropriate as a Sor/Wiz spell, or better yet available to all of the primary casters.

Ken

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

A comment.

I played AD&D for 20 years prior to 2000, then gave up the game.
Now I'm reconsidering, and products like the Spell Compendium are one reason for that.

Also, from what I've heard of 3.5, I am turned off. All this nerfing of magic turns me off. So I would be very unlikely to rejoin the Hobby, no?
But, I'm considering buying the book (it's $40, which is pricy) and rejoining the Hobby.

The Spell Compendium must have something going for it, then!

So what's the secret?

When you gather all the rules into one place, where everyone has a chance to access them, you give freedom and power to the players and DM alike.
From freedom comes innovation, imagination, and creativity, because now there is a solid base of rules to base those things on, and a consistency which the players can rely on.
Now, if the players and DM wish to add more complexity, it is easier to do so, because they already have a huge base (the Compendium) to start from.

The more rules, and the more consistent the rules, the greater the freedom and empowerment of the players and DM alike.
It does not matter if the spells are nerfed and I prefer the powerful 2nd edition spell versions. Now, I have a complete set of rules with which to make comparisons - if I want to change a 3.5 spell into it's powerful 2nd edition variant but still using the 3.5 rules, I can do so.
For example, I can take Haste 3.5 as it is written. Or, I can reference it against the Haste of 3.0, or 2nd edition. And then I can take whichever version of Haste which suits me best. I can do that because I have easy access to a consistent set of rules.

I honestly think a Compendium of Feats and a Compendium of Prestige Classes ought to be compiled. I'd pay the $40 for each. Pricy? Yes. But did it take an agonizingly monumental amount of work to produce those books by WOTC? Yes.

Back in 2nd Edition, they produced the most powerful spells you could imagine (most of you would call them broken or munchkin, in today's terminology.)
But because those spells were in obscure products, which if you were extremely lucky you actually saw in a store, much less bought, neither player nor DM had access to them. So, the would-be munchkinized mage, wasn't, even if the DM was all for the idea.
And, if the player merely wanted access to some neat spell, not overpowered but very interesting and creative, he and the DM alike lost out because the spell was in an obscure product overlooked.
The Wizard's Spell Compendium and Priest's Spell Compendium fixed that, but they came out at the end of the lifespan of 2nd edition, whereas this Compendium is coming out at the beginning of the lifespan of 3.5.

Edena_of_Neith

 

[Moon-Lancer]

yeah. i really dont know what to say about that. When it was a enhancement bonus I really never wanted to use that spell becuse if you have magic iteams, there really wasent a point to the spell. Now if it is a insight bonus as you say, it is actualy too powerfull and is a spell that none should be without. funny how a slight bonus type change can make such a big diffrence in spell power.

It can alwayse be dispelled, but i dont think that argument can be used for all spells though.

It is a level 5 spell so i guess its powerfull. I think other casters should have their own versions too.

Is this a druid only spell or is it a claric spell as well?

 

[BWP]

This is what bugs me about WotC releases. Every time I've bought a book and find a spell reprinted for the third, fourth, or fifth time, I get a little grumpy - and I'm grumpier when the same spell has slight variations from book to book. Sometimes, a spell will be reprinted twice in a three-month period, with slight but functional differences, but you just can't know which is the "authoritative" one.

I read somewhere just recently -- I think it's in the FAQ -- that the most recently published version of a spell (or feat) is the "authoritative" version. So if a spell is published in two (or more) books, whichever book has the most recent publication date has "the" version of the spell to use.

So, the Spell Compendium, being brand-new at this time, automatically "trumps" all prior versions of the spells contained therein.

 

[beaver1024]

I.e. a free +5 to spell DC for druid spells (on top of owl's Wisdom, even). It was originally in MoF, and I was hoping they'd get rid of it. It's way too much.

Hello 3.0 Spell Power. Let me guess Spikes is in there unmodified? Quill blast is in there unmodified? Umm biased?

 

[beaver1024]

its also suseptible to damage reduction per a bolt so... it has its drawbacks.


this is how it reads in far corners of the world

Splinterbolt
Evocation
Level: Druid 2, Sorcerer/Wizard 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One or more streams of splinters
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

You cause a long, thin, sharp beam of splinters to lance out of your outstretched hand to strike a target in range. You must make a ranged attack (not a ranged touch attack) to hit the target; if you hit, the splinterbolt deals 4d6 points of piercing damage. The splinterbolt threatens a critical hit on an 18-20 and deals x3 damage on a successful critical hit.

You can fire one additional splinterbolt for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three splinterbolts at 11th level). You can fire these splinterbolts at the same or different targets, but all splinterbolts must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

If you cast this spell in forested terrain, the splinterbolts are treated as cold iron magic weapons, and they deal an additional +4 points of damage on a hit.

Material Component: A splinter of wood.

Where does it say that it is subjected to DR? Don't say it's because of the piercing damage because ice storm has bludgening damage and that's not subjected to DR. Spell damage is not subject to DR. Does the spell description in the spell compendium specifically says that it is subject to DR?

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Splinterspell

Yes, the description of SplinterSpell in the Spell Compendium says that it is subject to DR, but that it counts as a magic and piercing weapon for the purpose of assessing DR.

Ken

 

[Moon-Lancer]

In far corners of the world i took this sentence and used common sense

"If you cast this spell in forested terrain, the splinter bolts are treated as cold iron magic weapons..."

why would it become cold iron magic weapon if damage reduction wasn’t an issue?

This line made me believe that if it is not cast in a forest that its not a cold iron magic weapon and thus has damage reduction, because if it got past damage reduction naturally, what would be the point of it being cold iron and magic in a forest?

The spell stalagmite (also in far corners of the world) was written in a slightly clearly way and said it’s treated as a magic +1 weapon for damage reduction purposes. Sense they were both far corners of the world spells I assumed that splinter bold was meant to have damage reduction. The spell would be too powerful without damage reduction affecting it.

I am very glad they fixed this is in the spell compendium so it is clearer to understand that damage reduction applies.

It is quite an odd spell. Its evocation, it has spell resistance, and damage reduction does apply. Took me awhile to get over that… but whatever… once I stopped fretting it was fun spell to play around with. Actually it’s my druids main offensive spells along with flamestrike.

If you use the wotc faq that all spells that do direct damage don’t have spell resistance, this spell will become broken. I promise you.

Haffrung Helleyes thanks for the low down on spells in the book.

May i ask if salt ray and kelp strand are in the book and are they changed from the original sorce. They are far conner spells as well.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040131a