(R&R2) Specific opinions and findings

[fba827]

Post 1 of 2 -- Purpose of this thread

Relics and Rituals 2: Lost Lore, by Sword and Sorcery Studios, has been out for just over a month now giving a few folks a chance to read the book if not use it yet at their gaming table.

Before I get to the meat of my post, let me make a few blanket statements.

First and foremost, I honestly think that the book is very well done (and reviews for the book, both from EN World and other sources, are all coming out quite positive so I don't think I'm in the minority by saying that). The rules, spells, magic items, and other bits are all creative at best and good at worst.

Secondly, I am proud to say that I am one (of several) contributing authors to the book with about 16 things in there. Although this fact is entirely irrelevant to this thread, I wanted to mention that upfront so that no one thought I have an ulterior motive.

Having said all that, I would be interested in pulling together comments and opinions that have come up, perhaps at your gaming table or while reading, regarding the book. This can either be something you (or your group) found to be exceptionally great (both in desired effect and mechanics used to bring about the effect) - or - this can be little things you found that needed additional clarification (for whatever reason).

No clarification listed here should in any way be considered errata. I say this since, frankly, only folks at S&SS can know how they really want things to work in the SL campaign world; maybe they do want something to considered weaker/different for some reason in unshared-backstory.

The 2nd post, below, is going to be the list ...

If you do have anything to add, please keep your comments specific, constructive, and in the good-nature in which this thread is intended.

 

[fba827]

Post 2 of 2 -- Specific Opinions and Comments

** I plan to edit this list with any additional posts that others add **

p44 - Spirit Doll Affinity
fba827: Strike reference to ghost voice, it is a spell not in the book (or other source)

p87 - Aura of Menace
fba827: The sentence under the spell title differs from the Spell Effect listing. In the final sentence of the Spell Effect, consider changing the reference to "character level" to instead read "caster level"

p104 - Denev's Leap
fba827: someone mentioned that when compared to Tree Stride (which is the same level) Denev's Leap has a greater terrain application but casting time, duration, and distance traveled for Denev's Leap are less favorable. That said, individual DMs may want to wiegh how much the greater terrain application versus the negative aspects is worth in their campaign - either keeping it the same level or reducing Denev's Leap by one level if the gain isn't worth the loss to your game.

p111 - Enchant Spirit Doll
fba827: someone suggested that the focus components are really material components. However, per the PHB, the definition of material component states that the component is consumed by the casting of the spell. In this case, the items are consumed at the end of the spell, not at the time of casting. For this reason the components are in fact better to be listed as focus components (as they are).
fba827: in the components listing, strike the reference to "M" since there is no material component listed or even suggested by the text
fba827: in the spell's description, strike the reference to ghost voice as that is a spell not included in the book (or other source)

p119 - Healing Interdiction
fba827: this spell would be a great boon if cast on undead and I do not believe that was the intent. Having said that, if it is not meant to be a boon to undead, then the target listing should probably say "one living creature" rather than just "one creature" ; of course, perhaps the intent is to allow that as an alternate use so this truely is an opinion-based clarification that I am listing here

p120 - Holy War
fba827: the sentence under the spell's title and the listing in the cleric spell index differ from the Spell Effect listing. The former two list that spell DCs also gain the bonus while the other does not mention spell DC increases. Given the spell level and 2 of the 3 say it one way, I am guessing that the Spell Effect listing should include the spell DC increase as one of the items gaining the bonus.

p122 - Kesheeri Refuge
fba827: Given what this spell does and that it is a spell level higher than endure elements, I tend to believe it should have an noticable effect on temperature-based attacks as well. Perhaps a +2 (or +4? I'm still debating that one) circumstance bonus to saves versus fire and cold based spells and effects

p124 - Lethene's Inner Storm
fba827: In the spell effect section, it mentions unarmed attackers but based on the nature of what is happening, it may be better to say "attackers using natural weapons" since it seems other natural weapon wielders should be affected as well.

p125 - Malaise
fba827: Given the spell's level, I don't think it should have the ability to reduce Strength below 1 (though it never says it can, it doesn't say it can't either) and all living creatures have a strength score. A clarification similar to that of ray of enfeeblment may be appropriate "Those affected by this spell can not have their Strength score reduced below 1 by this spell"

p135 - Sigil of Ice
fba827: The Target listing and the Spell Effect differ slightly. In order to keep this spell like Sigil of Fire, consider changing the Target listing to say "1 HD of animated corporeal undead / level" just list Sigil of Fire (this would make it coincide with the Spell Effect's listing as well)

p135 - Sigil of Ooze
fba827: The Target listing and the Spell Effect differ slightly. In order to keep this spell like Sigil of Fire, consider changing the Target listing to say "1 HD of animated corporeal undead / level" just list Sigil of Fire (this would make it coincide with the Spell Effect's listing as well)

p141 - Talen's Maligned Performance
fba827: The spell seems to imply that it worsens the target's performance, not making the ballad/performance any more difficult. That being said, perhaps instead of increasing the DC by the listed amount, it should be a penalty to the perform check for the listed amount. Net effect is more or less the same, however, so not a really big deal at all.

p143 - Tendrils of Eternal Night
fba827: After the school descriptor of "Evil" there is a question mark with a line through it -- I am guessing that they were trying to remove the question mark; or does it mean something else? I am guessing it is safe to assume that mark is removed and doesn't mean anything

p144 - Touch of Madness
fba827: The spell effect says that the caster can choose to lessen the damage but must do so before damage is roll. However, damage is not determined by dice; the only rolls are the attack roll and the save roll. And choosing to lessen the damage before either of those rolls doesn't seem as though it would matter. So, perhaps it would be best to clarify that sentence by simply saying that the caster can lessen the damage but must choose to do so at the time of casting.

p145 - Trust in Gods
fba827: the duration currently says "... for 1 day" that probably should say "... up to 1 day" since 1 day is the maximum, not the extent of the full duration

p146 - Vampiric Weapon
fba827: I don't think the weapon can be both the target and the focus. Probably should strike the reference to "F" in the components listing and strike the associated "Focus" listing at the end of the spell's description

p197 - Talisman of the Dove
fba827: The question came up what happens if the user's hand is occupied or bound. DM's will either want to address this by stating that the effect still works fine even if the user's hands are bound or occupied. Else, if wanting to avoid the question altogether, just have the effect emminate from the talisman itself rather than user's hand.

Miscellaneous:
fba827: I don't recall what spell it is, but one of the spell descriptions that tells the story of a specific person changes gender pronouns half way through and then switches back again. If I find that spell again, I'll move this from miscellaneous to the appropriate spot above.

fba827: Someone Emailed me, saying I should take out my favorites (for now) so as not to make this seem biased... so, later I'll add to the list the ones I thought were exceptionally good (and it is a hard selection to choose from! )

 

[Crothian]

I've read through it, but have had only a small chance to use it. I've used a few of the Ranger spells and that's it. I've used Nose of the Rat to track down Dire Tigers (Ironic, I know using a rat to track a cat ). I also used Stalker's sight to figure out a few times what I was tracking.

Overall, I think the spells are good, but I think some are getting too specific. I'd really like to see some more versatile spells.

 

[fba827]

(Ironic, I know using a rat to track a cat ). I also used Stalker's sight to figure out a few times what I was tracking.

Overall, I think the spells are good, but I think some are getting too specific. I'd really like to see some more versatile spells.

I do agree. In fact, I turned several of the more specific spells into powers granted by magic items. I like to follow a general rule of thumb that general application abilities are good for spells while the specific application abilities may be better as the powers of magic items. (Just my opinion though)

 

[Corinth]

I contributed Essential Blade and the arcane puissance weapon quality. So far, my only regrets were that I took a whole half-hour to write both of them. From the perspective of writing for clarity, I could've done much better. As for actual use of what I contributed, so far I've seen one sorceress who's not gotten to use the spell much and no one using the weapon quality. I look forward to hearing feedback from people who use my stuff.

 

[Piratecat]

Some feedback from Dr. Rictus and myself. Problem spells are definitely in the minority. What a good book!

- Quick Learn (which grants 3+1/level skill *ranks* in any skill the caster already has for an hour per level) seems suspicious; spells shouldn't grant ranks.

- Stop the Years is simply broken. All of a sudden, no cleric of 13th level or higher need ever age again? And the spell is living creature touched, so anyone - or everyone- could have their life extended. This spell is just dropped into the spell list without any commentary on its profound ramifications? This one spell could (and should) change the entire history and power structure of a campaign.

- Decompose is probably too powerful at 2nd level. A Fortitude save for most types of coporeal undead, or they are destroyed. Save-or-die generally starts around 4th-level spells, and even later than that for undead since they are immune to mind-affecting spells and most things requiring Fortitude
saves. Fortitude isn't even a good save category for undead. Even with a touch range and a 50 XP cost, this seems out of whack. Minor erratum: the target is listed as "creature touched," when in fact the spell also works on ordinary corpses, which are objects.

- Malicious Image is brilliant. Turns the target's Mirror Images into hostile shadow creatures. Minor gaps (what if anything is the shadow images' creature type? What type of damage do they deal? A stat block or something would not have been a bad idea). Plus one major one: the duration entry
says "see text," but the text doesn't actually say. I'm willing to assume that it's duration is that of the affected Mirror Image spell and that the only way its duration can end prematurely is for it to be Dispelled, but I think that got missed by mistake.

- Force of Will (substitute your Wisdom bonus for your Str, Dex, or Con one) is a cool concept. Possibly overpowered once you make it Persistent, but not necessarily. The spell should not say that a change in Constitution bonus "may grant temporary hit points" (which changes in Con bonus normally do not do) without explaining further. It's my opinion that it shouldn't have said so at all; there is no reason why the normal rules for changes in
Con bonus couldn't have been used.

- Holy War is brilliant, despite a couple of rules problems (does it have an area of effect or does it have targets? Core rules do not require a cleric to worship a particular god.)

- Healing Interdiction looks underpowered for a 9th-level spell until you realize that it prevents even a True Resurrection. Then it's just about right. Censure of Mesos, on the other hand, *is* quite underpowered for a 9th level spell. Killing someone stops them from using their spells or spell-like powers just as surely, and is way easier than casting this spell
on them.

- Righteous Charge has a number of problems. I love the idea of a spell that allows the paladin to reach his opponent amidst a sea of his allies, but it has rules problems. It allows the paladin to "make an attack of opportunity against every foe in his path with a +4 circumstance bonus" without taking any AoO's himself, and anyone who takes damage might be knocked prone and stunned. Any damage inflicted is double damage. The save for anyone hit is at a set DC instead of the normal one - I'm not sure why - but the real problem has to do with the AoO's. Does the spell change the number of AoO's a paladin can normally take? Instead of the normal one (or a usual 1-5 with combat reflexes), a paladin using this spell could conceivably take dozens, all at full BAB!

 

[Nightfall]

Nice to hear people's thoughts. I know the one spell that a LOT of us were concerned about, Shocking Bolt, is getting errata'ed. First making it deal only 1d8+1 per level (max +10) and lasting only a minute per round.

Stone Missile, I believe now DOES have an upper limit of seven (so it's better than magic missle) 1 for every two levels.

I know I'd like to fix Cesure a little. At least maybe make it last 1 hour per level for starters AND decrease the XP cost to 50 XP per HD. 100 is JUST a little much.

I actually LIKE Arcane pussiance. While not quite elemental aura, it DOES have a nice ring too it. Essential Blade, I thought was a little overpowered, BUT after considering the level AND the fact it doesn't overcome damage reduction, it's not that bad. Dragons might lose out on GETTING hit, but the fact is, they don't lose that much for ignoring the weapon's damage.

 

[Corinth]

I actually LIKE Arcane pussiance. While not quite elemental aura, it DOES have a nice ring too it.

Thank you! I figured that, sooner or later, some arcanist would find a way to enchant a blade such that he'd compensate with magic what he lacks in natural skill. So far, I've yet to hear any bad feedback about arcane puissance.

Essential Blade, I thought was a little overpowered, BUT after considering the level AND the fact it doesn't overcome damage reduction, it's not that bad. Dragons might lose out on GETTING hit, but the fact is, they don't lose that much for ignoring the weapon's damage.

Which is exactly what I intended. I think that there is too much emphasis upon armor and natural armor in the game now, so I created this spell as a countermeasure in the hopes that it would spur the development of alternate AC bonuses. There needs to be more AC bonus generators that aren't (natural) armor mods.

 

[Nightfall]

Right which means if you go after a gold dragon that has at least one level in cleric AND has a Cha of at least +26, he's got some nice sacred AC going on!

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Censure of Mesos, on the other hand, *is* quite underpowered for a 9th level spell. Killing someone stops them from using their spells or spell-like powers just as surely, and is way easier than casting this spell on them.

Just to amend my previous comments slightly with some thoughts since our conversation (and thanks for posting this stuff, PC!):

Naturally, you might not want to kill your target. I still suspect there are much easier ways to incapacitate him, however. The one thing about censure of Mesos that has occurred to me, however, is that abjurers are generally lacking in directly-targeted spells within their specialty to attempt to remove someone from a combat. So censure of Mesos could be good for such specialists.

The use of healing interdiction to protect undead from healing spell hadn't occurred to me, but it doesn't seem inappropriate for a 9th-level spell.