What are your "Problem Spells"?

[WizarDru]

I did mention a Balor and a Goblin before right ?

*checks*

Yup, I did.

Well, green slime beat me to it, but his point is my point, namely: a goblin isn't hitting anything near the AC or defenses of a 18-20th level party's defenses. If you've made that goblin into a 19th-level fighter, then the EL has changed and all bets are off, anyhow.

Which is most of the time in a typical dungeon

At 18th-20th level, there are no 'typical' dungeons. With ethereal, dim-dooring, shadow-jumping, flying, teleporting, shadow-walking, gaseous-formed, wind-walking, hasted, air-walking players, walls pose no problems, and they detect nastiness a long way off. Players often reserve such powers until needed, but at the levels we're discussing, the players choose their own battlefields as often as not.

I already adressed that :"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... "

With the vast array of divination, abjuration and detection magic available at high levels, it's very hard for the players to be suprised in this fashion, unless they're sleeping or completely unprepared. If we're going under your 'typical dungeon' assumption, then the rogue will most likely discover the balor prior to their encounter. With a spot/listen of +38, there's a reasonable chance for a decent rogue to discover the Balor undetected (and I'm talking pure skill to skill here, with magical enhancements...if the rogue goes ethereal, the Balor will only see her if he consciously scans the ethereal).

Once again, it's a coin toss if they can win init v.s. the Balor: I will not risk my campaign on a coin toss.

Nor would I ask you to...I'm just saying that IME, you wouldn't be. Although, with the plethora of save-or-die spell effects at high levels, every encounter has potential for such, it should be noted.

The mechanic of the Blasphemy is wrong, very clumsy to use for a DM if some critters have it at will. It is way above the power of it's opposing spell, Holy Word, who replaces Dazed (Not being able to do anything), with Deaf (-2 init, 20 % misscast). Surely you can't deny that.

Don't call me Shirley. More powerful than Holy Word? Sure, I can't deny that. It's also Evil, so my players won't be using it. But the mechanics aren't wrong, as far as I can tell, and I wouldn't classify it as 'way above'.

I hate for a DM to go :"OK, do some of my players have magic res ? No ? Oh well, I won't use the Balor then...".

At 20th level, at least some of the party members are likely to have active SR at any given time. Is someone wielding a Holy Avenger? Wearing a mantle of spell resistance? Have a monk in the party? There are other ways of course, and with any amount of prep time, you can get Shield of Law, Holy Aura, Greater Spell Immunity or any of a host of other spells running. Not to mention items like Metamagic rods to increase the duration of spells, rings of spell-storing and a host of other defenses.

Powerful? Yes. Welcome to 20th level encounters. The biggest difference is that in 3.5, encounters don't always come down to, who rolled initiative first and who fails their saving throw first? The Balor is meant to be a nigh-Epic encounter, the sort of which players talk/brag about after the fact. In 3.0, the balor was a push-over. Now he's not. That's a good thing, IMHO.

There are plenty of problem spells, but I'm not seeing it with Blasphemy. Most of your problem with it as a spell is in the Balor's use of it as an at-will spell, which has nothing to do with the spell itself, and everything to do with the Balor and a lack of equity with Holy Word.

 

[Trainz]

Most of your problem with it as a spell is in the Balor's use of it as an at-will spell, which has nothing to do with the spell itself, and everything to do with the Balor and a lack of equity with Holy Word.

Exactly Shirley. ;-)

Blasphemy as a spell is survivable. Let's say a demon can cast it 10 times, it would be stupid most of the times to waste it 10 rounds in a row. It just should never have been an ability at will. Bad design.

And the lack of equity with Holy Word is one of my points too. I'm glad you acknowledge that.

As for my Goblin and Balor previous example: A goblin will hit 1 in 20 times. He will also fumble 1 in 20 times, but the PC's are dazed, so no AoO. I know it will take forever, but if the PC's don't have MR, the outcome is certain: they will eventually get chopped down, even if it takes 1000 rounds. I'm sorry to tell that in a previous game that we played (we were 20th level), we faced two balors, and if the DM didn't decide to have a Balor stupidly stop his Blasphemy, we would have been TPK'ed. Didn't make us feel good that we finally won, because we knew that we shouldn't have.


edit: typo

 

[Trainz]

That Goblin is NEVER going to hit an 18th level PC... Sorry it doesn't work.

He will 1 times in 20. If the balor does blasphemy all the time, which he can, then that's a TPK if the PC's have no MR.

Also, the use of this by a balor in the Abyss banishes the heroes to their home plane. Hardly instant death.

That's a specific case, not adressing the general issue.

[...] Balor should never, ever be random encounters that just happen as the party passes on by, some form of foreshadowing should be taking place.

Are the Balor or Pit Fiend in some random encounter table in the DMG ? I do not have my books with me, and it's not in the SRD.

I agree with you, but if they are on a random encounter table, then it just seconds my point that there is a bad design here. Which is my original point: Blasphemy as a spell, ok. Balor having abilities at will, OK. Balor (Pit Fiend, whatever...) having Blasphemy at will, Not Good.

 

[WizarDru]

As for my Goblin and Balor previous example: A goblin will hit 1 in 20 times. He will also fumble 1 in 20 times, but the PC's are dazed, so no AoO. I know it will take forever, but if the PC's don't have MR, the outcome is certain: they will eventually get chopped down, even if it takes 1000 rounds. I'm sorry to tell that in a previous game that we played (we were 20th level), we faced two balors, and if the DM didn't decide to have a Balor stupidly stop his Blasphemy, we would have been TPK'ed. Didn't make us feel good that we finally won, because we knew that we shouldn't have.

I'm assuming we're talking about 3.0, right? Because under 3.5, that would have been an almost guaranteed lethal encounter. Under 3.0, it wouldn have been pretty hideous too, of course, but against a 20th level party, more dangerous. I wouldn't want to second guess your game or your DM, so we'll just agree to disagree, I think. I would agree that Blasphemy should probably changed to either have a save of some sort (and not just a WILL special) and not affect more than a certain level of dice above, or at least provide a save for said high-HD creatures.

 

[Trainz]

grumblegrumblegrumbledoublepostgrumblegrumblegrumble

 

[Trainz]

I would agree that Blasphemy should probably changed to either have a save of some sort (and not just a WILL special) and not affect more than a certain level of dice above, or at least provide a save for said high-HD creatures.

You know what, I wouldn't mind that much leaving Blasphemy as it is. It is weaker than holy-word, but still. What would need to be done, is to not allow circumstances where it can be cast once per round ad infinitum. That creates an unmanageable situation.

THAT's the problem I have with the spell. If a beast can cast disintegrate once per round, no problem. If it can cast meteor swarm once per round, still no problem. Blasphemy, it's just not manageable in a world where you want the suspension of disbelief thingy checked.

You know what, I would rather that the critter has some kind of fire burst expanding ring thingy for 20d6 at will (a la Diablo) than Blasphemy.

 

[Toras]

I believe that this supposition requires a minor clarification.
If you have a monk, he has natural resistance and with sufficent level can stunning fist a balor long enough for the party to recover. Even if the balor makes the stunning fist save, he still has to deal with the monk or continue to blashempy the rest of the party. And that assumes the monk can't quivering palm the silly bastard.
Also, our party magi never go anywhere without casting spell resistance. And in both my campaigns, our mage has the nifty counterspelling feats (and archmage abilities).

The problem is again, for you is if the balor catch them flatfooted. (This is rare and has yet to occur in a "traditional" dungeon enviroment.) We have been caught sleeping, or after prolonged battle, but the problem is, you would be doing that to a 20th level party anyway. Also hell's generals don't just go around randomly attacking people in the middle of nowhere for no reason. That's like having random encounter tables for COC, its not right.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Blasphemy-at-will is a 3.5 problem.

It wasn't a problem, at all, in 3E. In fact, a Balor using Blasphemy every round against a party of PCs in 3E was a very good way for him to get slaughtered, since it did absolutely nothing.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Despite being based on his D&D game, Brust's Taltos series is excellent...

No, no - Brust's Taltos series is very excellent.

-Hyp.

 

[green slime]

I think any DM who set it up with a balor constantly casting blasphemy, and a goblin or whatever else hacking at a group of PCs is stupid, unimaginative, and I wouldn't want to be in that game.

While these Generals of Hell are not stupid, they are also arrogant, with over-inflated egos. So what do you think it would prefer? To let a Goblin (or Vrock or anything else for that matter) do the killing over a few thousand rounds (20 rounds to inflict 3.5 damage, double damage once every 400 rounds: time to kill 20th level Brb (225 hp): around 1,280 rounds) or strangle the life out of these puny mortals itself?

Just because certain actions are the most Intelligent and logical course of action, does not mean those actions will take place. If that were the case then our whole world would not look like it does. People are affected by greed, lust, love, and other emotions that make them act illogically. A General of all that is evil, vile, greedy, lustful, sadistic and chaotic is going to make cool-headed, logical decisions when facing off against mere mortals?

DM's using these cheesy tactics against PCs deserve cheesy tactics used against them. Just because something is permissable by the rules doesn't mean that it is what should take place in the game. I agree that the "at Will" is problematic, but only if the DM is blinkered. I mean if the DM wants a TPK, it isn't like it isn't going to happen.

And at 20th level, at least one PC should have Spell Resistance. Not having spell resistance at that level is like the fighter not having a magic armour.