D&D 3E/3.5 What are the "problem" spells in 3E?

[Anubis]

I agree completely that this argument has been done to death. That all by itself makes it a problem spell.

Why do you say that Violent Thrust is not a legitimate use of TK? It is given right in the spell description. If I recall correctly, even using something like spears allows you to exceed the normal damage cap for spells. Making a better damage / weight ratio just causes the damage cap to be exceeded by a greater amount.

I didn't say that violent thrust wasn't legitimate, I was saying that the barrel of arrows trick is not legitimate. And it isn't. This has been gone over millions of times, and it's turned out the same every time. IT IS NOT ALLOWED. The spell SPECIFICALLY states what is allowed.

Using the barrel of arrows trick would result in maybe 1d6 damage per 25 pounds, up to 25 pounds per caster level. Of course, that's only if your DM is generous. Either way, the MAXIMUM damage would be 1d6 per caster level, the same as Cone of Cold, just without a cap.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

Re: Enlage/Reduce. Hence the reason I say most people won't have a problem with the spell as is. Just pointing out it doesn't really follow the size rules too closely (cast it on an ancient dragon for example...)

 

[bret]

I didn't say that violent thrust wasn't legitimate, I was saying that the barrel of arrows trick is not legitimate. And it isn't. This has been gone over millions of times, and it's turned out the same every time. IT IS NOT ALLOWED. The spell SPECIFICALLY states what is allowed.

It would have been nice if you had said it was the mention of arrows (which I specifically noted usually causes an argument) was what you were objecting to.

The spell itself states "Weapons cause standard damage (with no Strength bonus)." Arrows are questionable, since they are ammunition. Shuriken, spears, daggers, greataxes shouldn't be. All of those are weapons. Any of those would result in more than the normal spell damage cap.

Basically, just fill out your weight limit with any type of weapon and you will do far more than the normal damage cap. Lets use 5 shortspears per level, so at 10th level about 50 shortspears. We are now doing 50 to hit rolls, 50d6 damage. Provided we can hit with more than 1 in 5, we are ahead of the game.

The spell is broken in terms of exceeding the damage cap. It isn't that tough to carry that much weight, just use the Tenser's Floating Disk.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Simulacrum - please give a page reference for the "you must double in size in order to gain a size category". The only thing I can think of which even comes close is that someone under the effect of righteous might, and it's probably only mentioned because if you double in size, you ALWAYS gain a size category, whereas smaller changes may not reach the next categories requirements.

Enlarge has a problem in that it must do one of two things:
Either the character gains a size category when he reaches the appropriate size, in which case enlarge should mention the fact

OR

Enlarge breaks the rules for size categories as given in the MM and the PHB.

Both possibilities mark it out as a problem spell.

 

[Anubis]

It would have been nice if you had said it was the mention of arrows (which I specifically noted usually causes an argument) was what you were objecting to.

The spell itself states "Weapons cause standard damage (with no Strength bonus)." Arrows are questionable, since they are ammunition. Shuriken, spears, daggers, greataxes shouldn't be. All of those are weapons. Any of those would result in more than the normal spell damage cap.

Basically, just fill out your weight limit with any type of weapon and you will do far more than the normal damage cap. Lets use 5 shortspears per level, so at 10th level about 50 shortspears. We are now doing 50 to hit rolls, 50d6 damage. Provided we can hit with more than 1 in 5, we are ahead of the game.

The spell is broken in terms of exceeding the damage cap. It isn't that tough to carry that much weight, just use the Tenser's Floating Disk.

As for arrows, well, they have no damage listed, and thus do not get the treatment that weapons do. The BOW does the damage, the arrow just gives it. Without a bow, the arrows would do 1d6 damage per 25 pounds.

Ah, but with weapons, you are talking about A LOT of preparation time going into the attack. On top of that, by Level 9 (when this is first possible), most things have damage reduction, meaning if those weapons aren't magical, you aren't going to do ANY damage. (Damage reduction applies per hit, so each weapon in the violent thrust would be treated as a seperate attack, and since none of them can break through most creatures' damage reduction, none of them can do damage.) The creatures this would work on, you wouldn't need to use this trick in order to defeat, and thus it is wasted.

So you see, it doesn't work as well as some might think, once you take the actual rules into concideration.

 

[Mistwell]

As for arrows, well, they have no damage listed, and thus do not get the treatment that weapons do. The BOW does the damage, the arrow just gives it. Without a bow, the arrows would do 1d6 damage per 25 pounds.

I think the description of the arrow differs on this in the PHB pg. 97. It can be used as a melee weapon, and deals 1d4 points of piercing damage this way.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Precisely correct. Besides, even without arrows, one does have shuriken, darts, small knives, and all sorts of other little projectiles to use. Moreover, the DR argument is irrelevant, because we can keep pace with DR easily enough by using greater magic weapon.

Fact is, the TK "bucket of shuriken" trick is perfectly legit, by the rules. However, it fails the test of common sense. A simple fix is to restrict the number of weapon-like projectiles (i.e. projectiles that do weapon damage rather than damage by weight) to a number equal to the caster level.

 

[Marshall]

Heres one nobody has brought up...

Dispel Magic

Vague, very vague. Which spells are affected? How many spells are affected? How many times do you roll the dice? Are items affected?

etc, etc, etc.....

 

[Al]

Ah, but with weapons, you are talking about A LOT of preparation time going into the attack. On top of that, by Level 9 (when this is first possible), most things have damage reduction, meaning if those weapons aren't magical, you aren't going to do ANY damage. (Damage reduction applies per hit, so each weapon in the violent thrust would be treated as a seperate attack, and since none of them can break through most creatures' damage reduction, none of them can do damage.) The creatures this would work on, you wouldn't need to use this trick in order to defeat, and thus it is wasted.

A LOT of preparation time? Just have a Bag of Holding full of the blighters, empty it out and use TK. No problem there. After the battle, put them back in the bag.

As for DR, I don't believe it. Against NPC enemies, only the wizards are likely to have damage reduction, and that via Stoneskin, which is both expensive and requires him to win initiative. Magical beasts, beasts, giants, dire animals, plants, shapechangers, corporeal undead and abberations also tend not to have DR. Indeed, only elementals, outsiders, constructs and dragons regularly have DR at this level- clearly the minority in most campaigns. Your point about DR is therefore moot.

Your final throwaway commment: 'the creatures this would work on...' is even more questionable. Would this trick work against, say, a cloud giant. Yes? Would this be a difficult encounter for a 9th level party. At CR 11, yes again. This is but an anecdote, but the varied list of possible threats the party could face and against which this would work is listed above. Assuming that all foes of 9th level parties have damage reduction is clearly incorrect.

 

[Stalker0]

I would stick in with the various image spells.

What counts as interactions? The ph lists a few, but its not very specific. Exactly what can you have an image do while concentrating, depending on whether its silent, major, or inbetween.

My question has always been, okay major image gives an image texture. Does that mean it has somewhat of a tangibility if I fail a will save? Could I actually think I was grappling with a major image and suffer normal penalties.

If I create an image of fire, would a person take a mental subdual form of fire damage and could actually be knocked out from it?

I've always like images for there flexibility, but a little more guidance on them would be nice.