Spell Compendium: What are the "broken" spells?

[billd91]

Is that a rule somewhere? I know ray of enfeeblement specifically stops at 1, but I didn't know there was a general rule.

If it's not a rule, it's a darn good house rule. Without it, you'd have characters running the risk of dying because of a temporary Con penalty (if there are any out there).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

If a level 12 character can hit for 100 and only misses on a 1, that basically puts them even with level 9 wizards. So what's the problem?

(OK, maybe a level 9 wizard cannot deal 100 HP of damage in a single shot, but that wizard can Cloudkill a dozen Gibbering Mouthers in a single spell, or Fireball them all for about 31 points of damage each. Even if they all saved for half damage, the damage total for the round would be about 180 points of damage spread across the 12 Gibbering Mouthers. A 12th level cleric could cast Harm and do 120 points of damage in one shot. And all that stuff is core rules, not even using splatbooks. So I'm not following how a 12th level paladin getting really good odds to do 100 points is off-balance?)

Look at where the damage is going and what the damage is being done to. Cloudkill does its worst against weak creatures--creatures that would challenge the 9th level wizard generally just take some con damage which is dangerous but not usually a one-shot. Even those creatures that do have to save or die get a fortitude save which is usually between a 40-70% success rate. Likewise the fireball spreads out 31 damage to each of them with the risk that they make the save and take only 15 or so. 31 damage doesn't kill them outright. The same is true of harm. It can do 120 damage, but it gives the target a will save which is usually a 40-70% proposition and will not kill the target. All of the spells mentioned also have large groups of creatures who are immune or resistant to them.

The paladin's odds are much better and there are fewer creatures who will be immune or resistant. Moreover, it is focused damage and is thus tactically more valuable (and can be multiplied with cleave--and even great cleave)

In addition, I looked up about 20 random monsters. The difference between normal AC and touch AC was about 3 to 10 points, depending upon the creature. So a spell that allows you to strike touch AC is essentially a bonus of +3 to +10 on average (technically, it's the mean, not the average). So if that's too much of a bonus, then spells such as True Strike must be extremely broken. That spell gives a +20 to attack, it's only 1st level, and it's core!

True strike would be broken if it applied to your first attack each round for one round per level and were extendable with a lesser rod of extend spell. Since it only applies to one attack, however, and classes that get it don't get rhino's rush, it remains situationally useful rather than broken.

Also, looking up random monsters is not a good way to go about evaluating the value of making a melee attack into a touch attack. Low level monsters and high level monsters have relatively similar touch ACs. So, while your low level demon may only see a difference of 3 points, I seem to recall the difference was more like 20 points for an angel of decay. (It's even more if you have Improved Blink up and can ignore their dex bonus too--back in the halcyon days of LG, my not particularly optimized 16th level fighter/wizard took out a Cornugon in one round with a couple attacks to spare despite rolling at least one 2 on the attack simply by combining wraithstrike with the arcane spellchannel feat, and his improved blink contingency.) For giants, demons, devils, and dragons, the difference is massive. (And yes, there is scintillating scales, but there is also dispel magic--and it shouldn't be a requirement to survive guys with weapons).

I guess I just really don't see the prohibition against making normal attacks into touch attacks. It doesn't seem unbalanced on the face of it. However, maybe someone can teach me about any nuances I'm missing?

A few of the nuances:
A. enhancement bonuses to weapons. A weapon touch attack has a better chance to hit than a normal touch attack since it typically applies an enhancement bonus between 1 and 5. (It is also more likely to hit than a normal touch attack since weapon attacks are usually based on a maximized stat whereas magical touch attacks are generally based on a non-maximized stat--most clerics and wizards will max Wis or Int rather than dex or str).
B. power attack. With an ordinary touch attack like harm, all you get out of a +25 attack bonus against a touch AC of 12 is a 95% hit rate. With a weapon touch attack, that turns into Power Attack for 12 and apply 48 extra damage to the attack with your rhino's rush charge and still having a 95% hit rate.
C. Increments and thresholds. Damage is more valuable in higher increments. If your enemy has 60 hit points, going from 15 damage to 20 damage knocks one hit off the number needed to kill him. Going to 30 damage knocks that number down to 2. From there, going to 45 damage doesn't make that much difference, but if you can get up to 60 damage, you can one-shot him and cleave, you get dramatically more effective. That last 15 points of damage is what pushes the character over the edge. Rhino's rush+find the gap+power attack and wraithstrike+power attack both push the envelope high enough for characters to regularly get one-round kills. There may be ways to do 75% of the damage that those combos achieve, but those are much less reliable and much less problematic because they don't quite reach the heights that those combos reach.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I dunno - I kinda like mass aid and think it confers a fair benefit for its level. Reminds me of my ghaele PC who would go around aiding everyone prior to combat.

I agree with this. Mass aid is a good spell but is not IMO broken--the reason for this is mostly because Aid is not a good 2nd level spell. It would be average as a first level spell. The big difference with mass resist energy is that resist energy is one of the best 2nd level spells. That's why making mass aid at 3rd level works but mass resist energy is still probably too powerful even at 4th level.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I would argue that "Tome of Battle characters do it too" is a perfectly fine defense. It's not nearly as broken as most new to the book often think it is--unless they hold up core fighter and barbarian as the pinnacle of balance, in which case this thread is useless because every non-core spell would be considered "broken."

If you want to talk about one-shotting enemies, the fighter and barbarian can get their damage up much higher than a Tome of Battle character; the Tome folks simply bring up the low end, so a new player doesn't build a melee character ranging from "sucks absolutely" to "rocks absolutely" but rather one ranging from "below par" to "very good." Touch attacks for melee characters aren't a particular problem, it's touch attacks in general (c.f. disintegrate and a sword swing), so if you're not banning every single touch spell there's no reason melee types shouldn't get some touch attacks as well.

Disintegrate is hardly comparable to giving a fighter, barbarian or paladin touch attacks. You see, disintegrate really does 5d6 damage for an average of 17.5; it's kind of a glorified magic missile that doesn't automatically hit and is primarily useful for eliminating force cages and walls of force. Sure, it has the potential to do 77 damage if the enemy fails its save, but that doesn't happen often and as a limited ability, it had better be good or it wouldn't be worth a scarce 6th level slot that could have been fires of purity or contingency.

For a fighter type, on the other hand, touch attacks are a license to power attack for full and hit with your last iterative attack on a roll of a 2. 80% chance of 17.5 damage and a 20% chance of 77 damage? Hah! Try a 95% chance of 60 damage four times per round. Then see what is still standing.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I believe that the spell you're thinking of is the Celerity Line of spells, out of PHB2.

As far as 3.5 Haste goes, it's much tamer than any 1st, 2nd, or 3.0 Ed D&D version (and easily managable).

Agreed. I was referring to 3.0 haste in 3.5 which is what you get with the belt of battle and the celerity spells.

And the Belt of Battle is kinda broken, but it only has 3 charges (which means for most adventurers once-a-day greatness).

That once per day greatness is often too much--it results in too much front-loading and makes combat come down to initiative rolls far too frequently. More to the point, however, there is no limit to characters having only one belt of battle. It is perfectly possible for a character to have four or five and just change belts after every battle. Some DMs would not allow it, but I've seen it happen.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't know if that really works. Shouldn't you need to cast the spell BEFORE the damage takes someone over the threshold?

i.e. you have to cast it BEFORE the attack roll, since I don't think you can cast between the hit and the applied damage, at which point the target is already dead.

And with that in mind, I think the spells is not too bad.

Bye
Thanee

I usually saw it cast after the attack roll but before damage was rolled. That said, even with your interpretation, it is still pretty easy to cast it just before the attack whenever a character is in the danger zone. Your interpretation preserves the risk of death from hp damage due to critical hits, but not much else.

 

[Runestar]

Disintegrate is hardly comparable to giving a fighter, barbarian or paladin touch attacks.

Then I guess we will just have to up the ante to save-or-die spells, or spells which disable foes without saves.

Wizard moves, casts quickened true-strike and fires an empowered orb spell. Cleric moves and casts destruction. Druid moves and casts finger of death. Fighter moves and .... swings for 2d6+15.

I guess the problem here is more of the fighter's reliance on the full-attack action. He is capable of dishing out astonishing amounts of damage (and unlike a caster, can do so without needing to expend any resources), only problem is that he needs a full round to do so (which sorely hampers his mobility). The discrepancy in damage between a full attack and a single attack is just too great.

Is it any surprise that the (optimal) tactics of many high level monsters such as the balor, pit fiend, titan, molydeus, planetar and solar all involve spamming high lv SLAs while remaining on the move to deny the fighter classes their full attack, rather than bothering to actually wade into melee? Or at least, they would do so only after their spells have sufficiently softened the opposition.

It is perfectly possible for a character to have four or five and just change belts after every battle. Some DMs would not allow it, but I've seen it happen.

Considering that the belt of battle will likely also house an enhancement strength bonus (using MIC's revised pricing guidelines to combine belt of battle with belt of str and con), I doubt it...

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Disintegrate is hardly comparable to giving a fighter, barbarian or paladin touch attacks. You see, disintegrate really does 5d6 damage for an average of 17.5; it's kind of a glorified magic missile that doesn't automatically hit and is primarily useful for eliminating force cages and walls of force.

Well, let me just say that if your foes are saving against your disintegrate often enough that you consider it only worth 5d6 damage, you're probably doing it wrong.

But as Runestar says, the same applies to any save-or-die. Yes, the melee types can dish out a lot of damage...if they get off a full attack, which means they need to hit, which means they need to get to the monster, which means they need to survive long enough to get to the monster, which isn't at all a guarantee. Tome of Battle removes the "must full attack" part, but their damage isn't nearly as high either, so it works out about even.

Meanwhile, the wizard is throwing out save-or-dies left and right (and again, if you're focusing on save-or-suck spells and your enemies are making the saves regularly, you're not trying hard enough). Tons of damage under certain conditions, versus "I get a standard action, I win"? Let the melee types have their touch attacks.

 

[Thanee]

Close Wounds is an immediate spell. It says, "If you cast this spell immediately after the subject takes damage, it effectively prevents the damage. It would keep alive someone who had just dropped to -10 hit points."

And that is exactly it... it says so. Delay Death does not.

Following that model for how immediate actions work, ...

There is no model here, just a specific spell, that specifically allows to be cast after an effect has occured, in order to negate it. You cannot simply translate that to any other spell. Immediate Actions do not normally allow such things.


@Elder-Basilisk: Yeah, still a very potent protection for sure, but you will use up a lot more slots then, if you always have to cast it before an attack is resolved (interrupting the attack, thus happening before the attack roll). That's quite a difference to me.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Then I guess we will just have to up the ante to save-or-die spells, or spells which disable foes without saves.

Wizard moves, casts quickened true-strike and fires an empowered orb spell. Cleric moves and casts destruction. Druid moves and casts finger of death. Fighter moves and .... swings for 2d6+15.

Wizard's damage: about 76.
Cleric's damage: about 35 (monsters failing fort saves--pull the other one)
Druid's damage: about 26 (monsters failing fort saves--pull the other one)
Fighter's damage: 22 by your calculations.

But that fighter is not doing his job right. At level 16 or so (which is where the spell options you mention are not the absolute best thing in the characters arsenals) the fighter should be at about 25 strength (16 start, +3 level, +6 belt) with greater weapon specialization and melee mastery and a +1 holy, wounding greatsword made from starmetal. At that point, if he is attacking a high AC target where he dare not power attack, he's dealing 2d6+19 (12 str, +6 feat, +1 enhancement) +2d6 holy +1 point of con for an average of 31 points of damage and one point of con. If the cleric gave him a greater magic weapon spell, that's 2d6+22 +2d6 +1 con for an average of 36 damage and 1 con. If he power attacks for five (which he probably can without much trouble), that's an average of 46 damage and 1 con--which puts him pretty close to the wizard in effective damage inflicted.

Now, sure the monster probably have a 5-30% chance of failing those fort saves and dying outright.

But the wizard could also have dropped a quickened dimension step spell to put the fighter in range for a full attack, at which point said fighter clicks his boots of speed, and unloads five attacks for a probably damage around 180 and 5 points of con or more if he power attacked.

Now, give the fighter an "all your attacks are touch attacks" ability and he power attacks for 16 and still hits all five attacks for a total of 340 damage and 5 points of con. Are you seeing the broken yet?

I guess the problem here is more of the fighter's reliance on the full-attack action. He is capable of dishing out astonishing amounts of damage (and unlike a caster, can do so without needing to expend any resources), only problem is that he needs a full round to do so (which sorely hampers his mobility). The discrepancy in damage between a full attack and a single attack is just too great.

Is it any surprise that the (optimal) tactics of many high level monsters such as the balor, pit fiend, titan, molydeus, planetar and solar all involve spamming high lv SLAs while remaining on the move to deny the fighter classes their full attack, rather than bothering to actually wade into melee? Or at least, they would do so only after their spells have sufficiently softened the opposition.

Depends on the high level monster in question. When I played Age of Worms, our fighters were the ones trying to stay out of range of Dragotha's full attacks. (Of course, I was playing a fighter/scout with the PHB 2 improved spring attack line of feats so, in general there wasn't much difference between my full attack and my move+attack).

Considering that the belt of battle will likely also house an enhancement strength bonus (using MIC's revised pricing guidelines to combine belt of battle with belt of str and con), I doubt it...

Who do you think uses belts of battle? It's not for fighters; it's for wizards and clerics. Flame strike+Belt of battle+Flame strike. Prismatic wall+Belt of battle+Telekinesis.

Now, if you use the MIC's revised pricing guidelines, the fighters will probably have belts of battle too, but they'll either use them for extra move actions so that they can full attack in round 1 or blow them all at once for two full attacks in round 2.

Either way: belt of battle=broken. There's no call to bring 3.0 haste into 3.5.