What spells are you bored with?


log in or register to remove this ad

Just out of curiousity, would MM be less of a problem if it and all other 'force' damages were subject to plain ol' damage reduction? I don't see how a force effect is any different from being whacked with a mace...? Descriptively then, MM becomes a barage of baseball like colored streaks of light. What happens if you just reclasify MM as causing blunt damage instead of force?

The image of ghostly falcons is way cool btw. I'd classify that as identical to the MM spell, but causing slashing damage, not force.

In a similar line of reasoning, what would a 1st level spell built to the same standard of utility as MM but which causes subdual damage look like? Same but use d6+1s? Basically, ifyyou're going to have MM at all, it should be a benchmark, not the end all be all :).
 

Hmm. Too bad those aren't OGL on the website... I'd consider replacing MM with Arcane Bolt in a campaign I'm thinking of publishing...
 


JoeBlank said:
The spells are still on WoTC's website, archived in the "Spellbook" feature:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20001001a

I think most of the spells were written by Monte Cook.

I had the same opinion about Arcane Bolt, useless against foes with evasion.

That's kind of the point of evasion. It allows a class with low HP and no ability to cast defensive magic to avoid the most damaging spells on a good roll. The best damage spells are either ranged touch attack or Reflex save, so the rogue has a decent chance of avoiding them. The cleric won't, but he has more HP and his saves allow him to avoid incapacitating effects (and you need the cleric to restore others who are paralyzed, blinded, petrified, etc.).

There are some less-damaging spells with other saves (Sound Burst, Shout). The rogue can survive those. The few really damaging spells that are non-Reflex saves and don't have hit rolls are absolutely devastating to most rogues. Horrid Wilting. And an incapacitating effect that did have a Reflex save would knock out most clerics.

Back to topic - fireball is boring because it feels to much like technology. Give me Surtur's Ghost, a giant figure that appears, strikes every foe within 20' with his sword of flame for 1d6/level fire damage (Ref half) and then vanishes. Or the Blazing Swarm, a horde of Tiny fire elementals that burst forth from the caster's eyes, fly to the target point, and accomplish the same task. Give me flavor.
 

Castellan said:
I've never had a problem with Magic Missile. Even at higher levels, it's never been broken in my games.

Now, what I'm tired of in my game is the druid who indiscriminately casts Flame Strike at everything she sees. I've never seen another druid burn down so many forests, or kill as many innocent bystanders as this player does when she casts multiple Flame Strikes at her targets (including those in melee with party members).

A day of reckoning is coming.... She's high enough level, now, that other druids are beginning to think of her as a "rogue druid." Screw divine intervention. We're going to have an all-out intra-faith smackdown! :D
You do realise that flame strike doesn't ignite flammable materials, don't you?

Standard D&D rules are that instantaeneous fire attacks don't ignite materials unless they specify otherwise.

Fireball specifies that it ignites flammable materials
Flamestrike doesn't

There's probably reasoning behind that. Reasoning like "why the heck would the primary offensive spells of a forest-lover be ones which set fire to stuff?"
 

Saeviomagy said:
There's probably reasoning behind that. Reasoning like "why the heck would the primary offensive spells of a forest-lover be ones which set fire to stuff?"

Sound reasoning, but why does Fire Storm then specifically state that it doesn't harm vegetation and stuff like that, if that's the default case as you put it?
 

Kesh said:
Hmm. Too bad those aren't OGL on the website... I'd consider replacing MM with Arcane Bolt in a campaign I'm thinking of publishing...

Thats probably not the thing you ought to be worrying about when publishing a setting. Flavor of both spells is exactly the same, and the mechanics are almost the same. Impact on your setting == zero.

With either spell your setting is going to have 1st level casters lobbing magical objects at foes ;)
 

I believe these spells are only "common" to gaming groups who have a good amount of DND experience under their belt.

For the newcomer to the game, I'm not entirely sure they will see these spells as common.

In my opinion there is always going to be something "common" or "always used". Take away "magic missle" and then some other spell will probably come up and take its place.

It's one thing for the DM to think that a certain spell is broken, over-powered, etc., but unless the players can see the logic behind the reasoning for nerfing the rules, they may not be playing for very long.

Balance is one thing, but just because a DM doesn't "like" it or thinks it's "dull" is another.
 

Yeah but if you take out the fun stuff no one wants to play Wizards

Folks gather around the table to play Dungeons and Dragons not "a D20 Fantasy RPG" Take out fly, fireball. teleport, magic, missile and so on and don't compensate the wizards and/or reduce the monsters and you will break the game IMO


as for bland-- yeah I think the evokes are kinda dull- but you can always change the FX a bit
Fireball becomes Energy Blast (ala Arcana Unearthed) and Magic Missle could be altered to Word of Wounding (allow missiles to effect only one target, make component verbal only) and so on

If you are sick of the tropes first try setting a good example -- load up your NPC threats with grease, reduce person and all sorts of thr wierd stuff. Than make the wizard cool and effective



The players will feel free to try some novel tactics too
 

Remove ads

Top