What are your "Problem Spells"?

[green slime]

Ah, but you control the infrastructure and the social order. You can put the wizards against each other, keeping them at odds amongst themselves and the divine casters, if possible. Things like income, tax breaks, comfort for friends, family and companions of said spellcaster, controlling item availability and a host of other non-combat options are open to you, even if that spellcaster is a dastardly fellow.

Things like that finely crafted chest spell component worth 500 gp, crown worth 5000 gp or that diamond worth 1500 gp usually need to be purchased...and that means you, the King, control the accessability of such goods. Need more quarry stone to increase your fortress? Need foodstuffs for all those guardian beasts you've got?

Remember that the social order pretty much programs folks to see the nobility as rightful rulers, at least in the medieval mindset. Add in to that the fact that the rulers actually provide a needed beuracracy that makes more than simple barter and subsistence living possible, and you understand that power comes from more than just simple Dominate Monster spells.

All True, but this is what makes the Wizard such a fearsome unknown, in such a society. All others are easily controlled. A cleric has his religion and dogma to answer to. A fighter is limited by what he can himself achieve. A rogue has the local guild/maffia family. But the Wizard is limited by none of this. His powers are his own. Trying to play wizards against each other isn't going to work; most of them should be smart enough to see what is happening. I'd just as soon avoid getting their ire up anyway, and let them do whatever it is that they do in their dungeons a dark, dank and deep.

If I have my own little Kingdom Queezle and I hear of Mighty Wizard X is moving in, there isn't much I can do to throw him out. Having the populance clamour that I am the rightful ruler isn't much help when I'm pushing up the daisies. And while the Wizard MAY appreciate the stability of the kingdom of Queezle, there is no guarantees that is going to last. My point is, I wouldn't trust any item that wizard gave me or sold to me unless I was in extremis. He is too much of an unknown. Therefore, once he settled in, I'd grant him the land (he already has it, but now it is like... legally his) He wants food for those beasts in his basement? Well, I try to get a good deal, but in the back of my mind is the idea, he is going to get it somehow or other...

 

[WizarDru]

If I have my own little Kingdom Queezle and I hear of Mighty Wizard X is moving in, there isn't much I can do to throw him out. Having the populance clamour that I am the rightful ruler isn't much help when I'm pushing up the daisies. And while the Wizard MAY appreciate the stability of the kingdom of Queezle, there is no guarantees that is going to last. My point is, I wouldn't trust any item that wizard gave me or sold to me unless I was in extremis. He is too much of an unknown. Therefore, once he settled in, I'd grant him the land (he already has it, but now it is like... legally his) He wants food for those beasts in his basement? Well, I try to get a good deal, but in the back of my mind is the idea, he is going to get it somehow or other...

Mighty Wizard X wasn't always so mighty, and any ruler worth his salt would keep it that way, any more than he'd let someone raise an army on his lands or a rogue cult to gain power. And power-hungry wizards are astonishingly easy to play against each other. Those items can easily be identified and analyzed by many others, including those aforementioned clerics. The question also stands: does the wizard benefit from making an enemy of the local powers-that-be? Just because he could destroy them doesn't mean it's in his best interest to do so, even if he is the most surly and disconnected individual around. An excellent example of this is Sepulchrave's story hour, linked below. Look at how the mages work there as a good example.

Mind you, I'm not disagreeing with you...just pointing out that it could go in more than one direction. Everything you mention is just as appropriate, and likely, as not. I just meant that it could work either way, depending on how the campaing was structured and the world designed.

 

[Trainz]

The worst spell IME is Blasphemy.

If it was only a spell available to clerics, it wouldn't cause so much problems, but when some critters like the Balor can use it at will, it is just plain idiotic to put the Balor in a game:

1- If the party is above 20th level, then the spell is totally useless and the Balor becomes a more manageable encounter.

2- If the party is 20th level or lower, and put one Balor and one Goblin, and you got yourself a 100% TPK.

It is impossible for a DM to put a Balor against a 20th level party or lower, unless he plays the Balor dumb (which are NOT dumb creatures) and he forgets to use Blasphemy.

Two fixes:

A) Change the way Blasphemy works or;

B) Do not give it to critters usable at will. 3 times per day, sure. At will, impossible.

 

[ForceUser]

The worst spell IME is Blasphemy.

If it was only a spell available to clerics, it wouldn't cause so much problems, but when some critters like the Balor can use it at will, it is just plain idiotic to put the Balor in a game:

1- If the party is above 20th level, then the spell is totally useless and the Balor becomes a more manageable encounter.

2- If the party is 20th level or lower, and put one Balor and one Goblin, and you got yourself a 100% TPK.

It is impossible for a DM to put a Balor against a 20th level party or lower, unless he plays the Balor dumb (which are NOT dumb creatures) and he forgets to use Blasphemy.

Two fixes:

A) Change the way Blasphemy works or;

B) Do not give it to critters usable at will. 3 times per day, sure. At will, impossible.

A 20th-level party is generally not going to encounter a balor randomly. Instead, they'll likely know what they are soon to face and have time to prepare accordingly. Yes, blasphemy is nasty, but with spells such as spell resistance and spell immunity freely available (not to mention items with these effects), I have no pity on a 20th-level party that gets caught flat-footed by a balor. And don't forget, the balor may have blasphemy, but the cleric has holy word. YMMV.

 

[Tonguez]

Which is why there should be spells and magical items that cause the soul to be corrupted and/or destroyed.

Wouldn't be no fun true ressurrecting a rabid, berserking minion of vileness now then would it

Actually I think that would be MORE fun

IMC True Res doesn't exist and the Raise Dead Spell opens a gateway into the realm of the dead which the characters can then enter, fighting theirway past undead and abberations as they seek the Lingering Soul of the one they want to raise and try and get them back before they 'move on'

 

[Thanee]

And don't forget, the balor may have blasphemy, but the cleric has holy word. YMMV.

The problem is not the spell, rather the at will spell-like ability.

Sitting there for all eternity and casting one blasphemy after the other is just a little cheesy, so to say!

And no, the cleric can't do that!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Trainz]

A 20th-level party is generally not going to encounter a balor randomly. Instead, they'll likely know what they are soon to face and have time to prepare accordingly. Yes, blasphemy is nasty, but with spells such as spell resistance and spell immunity freely available (not to mention items with these effects), I have no pity on a 20th-level party that gets caught flat-footed by a balor. And don't forget, the balor may have blasphemy, but the cleric has holy word. YMMV.

What happens if you cast holy-word each round ? You're deafened. Woopty-doo.

You just can't compare Holy-Word with Blasphemy.

As the "A 20th-level party is generally not going to encounter a balor randomly" argument, that varies from DM to DM, so it is not a valid argument.

"spells such as spell resistance and spell immunity freely available "

Maybe, but unless the PC's know that there is a Balor behind door number 2, and the Balor wins Init., then they won't have time to cast those... they'll be too busy being dazed while the cleric deafens the evil critter with his mighty holy-word. Would you bet the future of your hard-prepared campaign on a coin toss ? I wouldn't, hence, no Balor before 21st level.

 

[Trainz]

Sitting there for all eternity and casting one blasphemy after the other is just a little cheesy, so to say!

Indeed. But unless the Balor is suicidal, that is exactly what he will do given the current parameters in the MM.

You know Thanee, I just love 3.5, but why in the nine hells didn't they take care of that. It is so obvious. It infuriates me.

 

[WizarDru]

Indeed. But unless the Balor is suicidal, that is exactly what he will do given the current parameters in the MM.

You know Thanee, I just love 3.5, but why in the nine hells didn't they take care of that. It is so obvious. It infuriates me.

Well, ignoring the fact that a General of Hell should be fairly powerful on it's face, is the fact that, by itself, Blasphemy isn't that big of a deal. If the party is 18th level or above (and they better be, if they're going to go toe to toe with a Balor), then the worst thing that will happen is that they will be dazed. A Balor who constantly dazes his enemies isn't taking any attacks himself, so it's a standoff. If he spends a round to attack, someone's going to be smarting or be dead...but now the other PCs can lay some smack on him, too.

Further, it assumes other things that are required, such as all the targets being in a 40 ft. burst range, all of them either lacking or failing their spell resistance rolls and no one being able to get off a silence spell or better yet, have a bard to countersong the spell. When I've seen what 20th level characters are capable of, the Balor seems strong, but not unbelievably so. He's an appropriate challenge for 20th level characters.

 

[Gez]

Web...