What are your "Problem Spells"?

[hong]

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.

Fine, make it a balor and 2-3 vrocks. The exact same situation results. You cannot possibly say that a group of demons who decide to use their abilities to full effect is somehow a stupid encounter for a high-level party.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Blasphemy at will is pretty harsh if used with coordinated attacks. Hopefully someone can get a Silence up quick.

Even though it is overpowered, I can still see a Balor being able to cast it at will. They are supposed to be supremely powerful demons.

 

[Deadguy]

Fine, make it a balor and 2-3 vrocks. The exact same situation results. You cannot possibly say that a group of demons who decide to use their abilities to full effect is somehow a stupid encounter for a high-level party.

Hmmm... not 'stupid' as in 'idiotic', but green slime does go on to clarify that it doesn't feel like the sort of thing a mighty demonic general does. He's earned his place in the hierarchy by being the most lethal killer around. Such a being is likely to want to show off his prowess, not stand back and let others defeat mere mortal scum!

One thing I try to do in running games is make the NPCs behave 'realistically', and Evil's great weakness is that it doesn't really trust others, and tends to an over-inflated sense of self. BBEGs make mistakes because they fail to really believe that others aren't like they are.

"Your over-confidence is your weakness."
"Your faith in your friends is yours!"

 

[WizarDru]

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.

Well, that comes to the unique nature of the spell. For most creatures, having a spell 3x day is the same as having it at-will, because for encounter purposes, he probably will either cast it as much as he possibly can and then die. A beholder will use it's eye-beams as much as it can, but if you limited it to each beam at 3x day, I'm not sure that the players would necessarily notice the difference unless it was sniping them from an unreachable location.

But Blasphemy is a spell that, for level equivalents, merely delays the battle. As such, it becomes a different situation when cast at-will then a meteor swarm, for example. Especially since there are more ways to counter the latter. But I suspect that some simple parameter change would make it more palatable...perhaps to reduce the burst radius or give a save. An evil cleric with the ability to scribe scrolls could replicate this behavior, so even without it being at-will, it could still become an issue if you find it problematic in repeated castings.

I agree that the Balor makes it problematic under certain situations...but so would a kobold who's manipulating a sphere of annihilation, if the DM ambushes the party with that. All of which is getting away from the original intent of the thread, I think.


From a game standpoint, there are several classes of spells that can make verisimilitude difficult. 3.5 has gone a long way to addressing the problem with scrying, one of the most egregious problems (while simultaneously making wise rulers more attractive and increasing the market value of lead ). The ready availability of the many healing spells, crafting spells and transportation spells are all spells that can be problematic if spellcasters are largely available and easily accessable. I would highly recommend Magic Medeival Society: Western Europe for a look at how a standard D&D setting can be made to make sense within a Medieval context, largely using social context to make to regulate much of the activities of a game.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But I suspect that some simple parameter change would make it more palatable...perhaps to reduce the burst radius or give a save.

Or use the 3E version.

It doesn't help with the scroll-toting cleric... but the 2000+gp price tag on each of those scrolls makes it eventually a self-limiting tactic for the cleric.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Hmmm... not 'stupid' as in 'idiotic', but green slime does go on to clarify that it doesn't feel like the sort of thing a mighty demonic general does. He's earned his place in the hierarchy by being the most lethal killer around. Such a being is likely to want to show off his prowess, not stand back and let others defeat mere mortal scum!

Indeed, a corollary to Hong's First Law (thinking too hard about fantasy is bad) says you can find a handwave for anything. Even so, some handwaves are better than others.

One thing I try to do in running games is make the NPCs behave 'realistically', and Evil's great weakness is that it doesn't really trust others, and tends to an over-inflated sense of self. BBEGs make mistakes because they fail to really believe that others aren't like they are.

You know that old saw about lawful good not being lawful stupid?

The same applies to chaotic evil.

 

[WizarDru]

Or use the 3E version.

It doesn't help with the scroll-toting cleric... but the 2000+gp price tag on each of those scrolls makes it eventually a self-limiting tactic for the cleric.

At 20th level, you aint' worrying about a paltry 2000 g.p. price-tag. I've been looking at the 3E SRD version...what makes it so radically different? The only real differences that I can see is that the 3.0 version, if taken as literally read, is only useful for a Balor to use on his home plane...making it a pathetic ability (which is consistent with the 'looks scary, but just weak' 3.0 version of the Balor, I suppose). The 3.5 version can't affect creatures with higher HD than the caster, and the 3.0 version has a smaller area of effect. If that is the case, then Holy Word jumps in relative power to Blasphemy under 3.0, as the players are much more likely to cast the spell on their home plane than the Balor is on his, making it almost a non-ability...which are teeth I really don't want to pull, personally.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The only real differences that I can see is that the 3.0 version, if taken as literally read, is only useful for a Balor to use on his home plane...

Well, if he's on his home plane, he can kick the PCs off. If he's not, he can't.

But the key is "Creatures native to the character's plane who hear the blasphemy and are not evil suffer the following ill effects..."

It means the Balor can, at will, and whatever plane he's on at the time, daze/weaken/paralyze/kill any non-evil creatures native to the Abyss who hear him.

Which makes it a "Get off my damned plane!" spell at will, not a "Haha, you're dazed until I say otherwise!" spell at will.

-Hyp.

 

[Pants]

Well, if he's on his home plane, he can kick the PCs off. If he's not, he can't.

But the key is "Creatures native to the character's plane who hear the blasphemy and are not evil suffer the following ill effects..."

It means the Balor can, at will, and whatever plane he's on at the time, daze/weaken/paralyze/kill any non-evil creatures native to the Abyss who hear him.

Which makes it a "Get off my damned plane!" spell at will, not a "Haha, you're dazed until I say otherwise!" spell at will.

-Hyp.

That was erratified.
3.0 Blasphemy is essentially 3.5 Blasphemy.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That was erratified.

That FAQ answer makes no sense.

"In spite of what the sentence in the third paragraph of each spell says..."

Essentially, "To understand Balsphemy, you have to ignore the spell description of Blasphemy."

It's an "invisible creatures can't provide flanking bonuses" answer.

-Hyp.