D&D 3E/3.5 problem spells in 3.5

[athos]

What are the most problematic spells in 3.5 and why are they problematic for you?

I think if you are worried about the spells in 3.5 being too powerful, you have either one of two problems :

1) You are a fighter and have magic envy.
2) You are a DM and are not smart enough to use the same spells as the players.

Example, players use Holy Word, kill all bad guys, no save. GM uses blasphemy, kills party, looks at players, and asks, "Ok, was that fun? Maybe realistic, but hey, realism is over rated. Should we try again without making it a competition of who can twink the best?" Problem solved, compromise in place, spells and feats used as intended.

Worked in the Bandit Kingdoms anyway

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Example, players use Holy Word, kill all bad guys, no save. GM uses blasphemy, kills party, looks at players, and asks, "Ok, was that fun? Maybe realistic, but hey, realism is over rated. Should we try again without making it a competition of who can twink the best?" Problem solved, compromise in place, spells and feats used as intended.

If your gonna do that you can go bigger...

My next villain will have an epic spell on him that is a living spell (can cast itself) that will stop time and buff me letting my stun run out before restarting time so I can kick the PC buts... because as the DM I can totally out munchkin you...

I'm not sure if that helps....but we did kinda just ignore most of the problem spells in a MAD agreement

 

[Obormot]

Example, players use Holy Word, kill all bad guys, no save. GM uses blasphemy, kills party, looks at players, and asks, "Ok, was that fun? Maybe realistic, but hey, realism is over rated. Should we try again without making it a competition of who can twink the best?" Problem solved, compromise in place, spells and feats used as intended.

Ok, so now what? No one uses blasphemy ever again? It's effectively banned?

In other words, you've found blasphemy to be... a problem? And have therefore banned it?

 

[athos]

[MENTION=16170]Obormot[/MENTION]

I think you missed the forest for the trees here. The problem isn't blasphemy or holy word, its the twinking some players do. The spells as written only kill the riff raff, 10 hd below the caster, which is fine.

What isn't fine is when the players use magic items, feats, etc. to boost up their casting level into the stratosphere that the spell kills creatures with higher hd than the party. This is twinking.

The GM, can take a phasm, or some other lowly monster, give it the half fiend template and advance it's hd to huge levels while still keeping its CR at the appropriate level for the party. It will kill the party, no save with a blasphemy.

Both situations are completely "legal" and within the bounds of play as written, but both are examples of twinking.

I guess if you are a min/maxer, then twinking is fine. But for most players and GMs it ruins the game, because instead or RPing the player (s) is just looking how to use the rules to break the game.

 

[Obormot]

[MENTION=32605]athos[/MENTION]

Fair enough. With that example, I don't actually disagree. But to be honest, caster level twinkery is not what makes blasphemy a problem spell.

What makes it a problem spell is that it dazes people of up to HD = CL. So, as chonjurer comments in his "problematic spells" list, you can have a pit fiend auto-daze an entire level 20 party, continuously, forever, while his imp minion stabs them all to death, 1d4 points of damage at a time.

That's what I, and I think most people on this thread, mean by "problem spells" — spells that are problematic when you use them either straightforwardly in the ways they were intended to be used, or creatively, following the rules, but without any particular attempt to "twink" or "break" anything.

(Incidentally, the exact problem you describe — blasphemy from the half-fiend template on a high-HD monster — crops up if you convert the adventure Bastion of Broken Souls from 3.0 to 3.5:

Spoiler

Ashardalon, the module's Big Bad, is a half-fiend great wyrm red dragon, with 40 hit dice. By the rules, his template-granted spell-like abilities should be at CL 40. They're not, fortunately; they are listed at CL 20, with no explanation for this. But if you miss this, and re-apply the template as written when converting him... it's likely to be an exceedingly short combat.

)

 

[Obormot]

[MENTION=32605]athos[/MENTION]

Also, "problematic" doesn't need to mean "overpowered", per se. Quoting chonjurer again, here are the categories of "problematicness" that spells could fall into:

DM - DM needs to plan many adventures with this spell explicitely in mind, coming up with defences against it and/or being aware of countermeasures and RPing constraints on the spells
Mech: - the game mechanics on this spell are grossly misunderstood, unclear or contradictory, and the spell desription needs to be fixed
Broke: - the spell is "broken" and needs to be reworked from the ground up or turfed entirely, as the game mechanics are flawed
Nerf: - (a) the spell is way too powerful for a spell of its level, OR (b) for a spell of any level
Conf: - the spell is really confusing and/or hard to use because of all the bookeeping involved
Non-core: - the spell has problems interacting with *many* non-core mechanics, and ends up looking broken because of them

The idea isn't that all of these are insurmountable problems that make a DM throw up his hands, flip the game table, and ride off into the sunset, never to DM again. Rather, it's just that we'd like to know about these issues, so they don't take us by surprise. (Having to house-rule on the spot is decidedly non-ideal.)

 

[Teulisch]

spells that are actual problems-

Summon Monster VII+, used to summon a djinni. the summoned creature has major creation 1/day with vegetable matter summoned being permanent. CL is 20, resulting in 20 cubic feet of the vegetable matter created. on the commodities list in the PHB, Saffron (flower pollen) or cloves (flower bugs) are listed at 15gp/pound. a cubic foot of ground cloves is 27.44 pounds, or saffron at 8.97 pounds/cubic foot. so, the Djinni can create 548.8 pounds of ground cloves, a commodity values at 8,232 gp, per djinni summoned. furthermore, the djinni can also create 40 gallons of wine(1 large barrel full, worth 10gp 6sp+), and food and water to feed 60 humans for a day. so any wizard of level 13+ should be able to destroy the price of spices and wine fairly quickly, as long as he can cast conjuration spells. its also a good source of darkwood (which we do not have a known density for).

wall of iron (caster level 11+) costs 50gp of gold dust(1 pound), and creates a minimum of 2.75" thick, and 11 5' squares in size. that is 108,900 cubic inches of iron, or 30,960.27 pounds at 1sp/lb, valued at 3,096 gp 2cp per casting. a conjuration specialist would be able to cast this twice a day, for a profit of 6092 gold per day at level 11. even if we nit-pick the thickness to 2", its still a ridiculous profit despite being a difficult shape to deal with. one mid-level conjurer could quickly flood the market with iron.

the problem originates with a spell being able to easily make profit appear from nowhere. easy to fix, simply by making a few edits to how the world interacts with magically summoned materials in the medium to long term. the short term in this case is one adventure, lets say a month. if the trade goods evaporate or degrade in a couple of months, then they wont be worth much. the spell effects are balanced, on their own in their original intent for use in tactical combat. its only when they hit the new rules in 3e for commodity value that they break the economy.

there are probably a few others that i haven't noticed yet, but those are the big two. i once ran a game where a subplot was the royal wizard abusing these two spells.

 

[the Jester]

Unless I missed it, nobody has mentioned the orb of x spells.

These are a bunch of spells that are conjurations ONLY to avoid dealing with SR, and are extremely poorly conceived. Orb of Force- how do you justify a force orb that SR doesn't apply against?? I don't buy it. Banned, all of 'em.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Banned, all of 'em.

I agree the SR ignoring thing is BS. Spells should not even have that entry. Cases like summoned creatures and that sort of thing should be explained in the relevant sections, but there is no need to establish whether a spell, by default, allows SR.

That said, couldn't you just houserule those spells to allow SR? They're still distinct spells and are not worthless on their other merits.

 

[dwayne]

First having read through most of this, it as if the GM is hurt because the player using magic out smarted him. Get over your self GM, the players are in the game to have fun and your job is to provide that. If their having an easy time because of spell use then take it in consideration when making the adventures or encounters. I my self being a gm for over 30 years I have had my bit of issues with spells and have turned each one to an advantage more than once. If you keep going the rout you guys are then just going to eliminate spells altogether and run a non magic game and rely on skills. Now if you go that rout then the players will start to build skill monkeys with feats and points ok then eliminate feats, ok then they will just max out skill points with high lintel, ok eliminate ability points..ect... rinse and repeat. You see where I am going here, the issues you are running into is you are allowing unchecked introduction of spells, feats or what have you and not taking the ramifications of those in the game in concentration. For example "detect evil" only detects evil if someone has evil intent at the time, where as "detect alignment" does let you know someones is evil. If they are not acting evil and you kill them just because the spell told you they were with no proof then the law of the land might deal with you as a criminal for murder of a noted respectable person "who may do evil acts unseen by those close to him". This is just one of may example I can give for any spell and how to turn it into a role play opportunity or adventure idea, in the end the game is only limited by you imagination and some that have submitted comments here are sorely lacking. The rules are a guide and are to help the GM make judgement calls on the unforeseen many of these cases could have been handled with just a little foresight and preparation.

This is what a GM does