Rant: WotC can't design their spells "right"

[Shard O'Glase]

Or the DM's not an idiot.

thanks that a lot more polite of a way of a way as I was going to phrase it since everyone seems hell bent on insulting my group.

I was willing to assume we played a different style of campaign where protection of a wizard was harder. But apparently I run games for a bunch of retards because they can't keep the wizard protected when there opponents are motivated to get the wizard.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It isn't hard. It's ridiculously easy in the case of class levelled monsters, just do the same thing players do in the same situation - mobility feats or equivalent spells, ranged attacks and held actions, bull rushes, overruns, the Tumble skill, etc.

Bullrushes, overruns, tumble and mobility will all get you there just in time to see his spell finish, and have nothing that you can actually do about it. Hopefully all that flesh between the mage and his assailant will give him a fair bonus against ranged attacks too.

If you can pull those off with a single movement action and get an attack on the wizard that matters, then your party are not a credible threat.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Bullrushes, overruns, tumble and mobility will all get you there just in time to see his spell finish, and have nothing that you can actually do about it. Hopefully all that flesh between the mage and his assailant will give him a fair bonus against ranged attacks too.

If you can pull those off with a single movement action and get an attack on the wizard that matters, then your party are not a credible threat.

And if the opponents can't get through to the wizard a decent amount of time, then they aren't credible threats worthy of their CR.

And where does it end? If the enemies have spellcasters, are they equally untouchable? If a fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric face off against an evil fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric, will they all be such "credible threats" that neither group can do a darn thing to the other's spellcaster?

A party isn't "useless" just because combat plays out differently for them than it does for your party.

Patrick Y.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Bullrushes, overruns, tumble and mobility will all get you there just in time to see his spell finish, and have nothing that you can actually do about it. Hopefully all that flesh between the mage and his assailant will give him a fair bonus against ranged attacks too.

If you can pull those off with a single movement action and get an attack on the wizard that matters, then your party are not a credible threat.

So, do you all play in a sunny savanna where everyone can see each other?

No fog? No ruins? No suprise round? No diving for cover? No sniper shots? Sorry, but just because your campaign plays out one way, doesn't mean mine plays out the same way.

While I agree that the spells are often unbalanced and out of the creation guidelines, I consider anything outside of the three core books as Third Party goods.

Even if they are made by WotC.

And if they bend and/or break the guidelines, and you don't like the way it was done, then don't buy it.

Oh, and as to the initial posting stating "We are rebalancing" please please please PLEASE don't tell me that WotC is planning on a new printing.

 

[Gez]

I'll change the schools of a lot of these spells.

For me, it is rather simple:
Conjuration summons matter (in the form of creatures or items), Evocation summons energy.

There are a few overlaps -- you can conjure a fire elemental, you can evoke a fireball. Fire can be brought by both schools. Acid is also both an energy and a matter (any corrosive matter, acidic or basic -- acid would be more properly named corrosion, but fantasy wizards are not 21st-Century scientists).

Even force is both energy and matter, in a way -- you can create a wall of force.

The distinction between energy and matter is the guideline I use. So, while the orb spells should be evocation, flaming sphere should be conjuration!

 

[MerricB]

Oh, and as to the initial posting stating "We are rebalancing" please please please PLEASE don't tell me that WotC is planning on a new printing.

3.5e saw a pretty radical shift in the way spells were assigned to schools - a rebalancing of the power of the specialist wizards.

Observant people will also note the design space that opened up with Melf's Acid Arrow - a damage-dealing conjuration spell that ignores spell resistance. (It was affected by SR in 3e)

The line that Al'Kelhar objects to is actually a legacy from 3e: it was not correctly changed to 3.5e. (It is in the DMG, pg 83 of the 3e version, page 299 of the 3.5e version). By the design principles of 3.5e, it should be struck from the book.

Because of the design space of Melf's Acid Arrow, similar spells (the orb spells) were moved into the Conjuration school and made compatible.

This isn't a conspiracy.

Wizards are applying the new rules correctly.

I said we were in the middle of a rebalancing of the spells, and I stick by that: the traditional "transmuters have everything" way is dead. Instead, Wizards are trying to make every school attractive.

Personally, I still think the Evocation spells are the best damage-dealing spells by a long, long way - the orb spells don't even come close (though they're good against a single, powerful enemy).

When 4e eventually rolls around, expect the schools spells are assigned to to be one of those areas that is reconsidered. (Along with metamagic and turning undead). This isn't something that will happen tomorrow, though.

I think there is now a design space for high-level evocation spells; you might want to consider submitting some to Dragon Magazine.

Cheers!

 

[philreed]

I think there is now a design space for high-level evocation spells; you might want to consider submitting some to Dragon Magazine.

I just finished the layout on a PDF of high-level evocation spells (and evocation feats) by Patrick Younts. My favorite spell was helix blast (6th level spell that unleashes a blast of energy from the spellcaster's eyes -- inflicts damage of two different elemental types of the caster's choice).

It's loaded at RPGNow and awaiting activation by their staff.

 

[MerricB]

Interestingly, the 9th level spell iceberg in Frostburn - it drops a large iceberg on the heads of your enemies - is an Evocation, not a Conjuration.

Iceberg
Long range; Spell Resistance; No save (reflex half for those in area); No attack roll; 20d6 damage

Cheers!

 

[philreed]

Interestingly, the 9th level spell iceberg in Frostburn - it drops a large iceberg on the heads of your enemies - is an Evocation, not a Conjuration.

Iceberg
Long range; Spell Resistance; No save (reflex half for those in area); No attack roll; 20d6 damage

Cheers!

It's still a fun spell.

 

[Testament]

I find it quite odd that Iceberg is an evocation. To me, the spell description SCREAMS Conjuration, it creates a dirty great huge lump of ice that lands on you.

IMHO, anything that creates matter is a conjuration. If it deals in pure energy, then its an evocation. Acid is always a conjuration, lightning, sonic and force are always evocations. Fire and cold can be either (you can create ice and white phosphorus/thermite). I think Gez gets it right (as usual).