Why are so many great spells Personal only?

[dman11235]

If tier 1 cannot handle every situation, then it is tier 2.  The definition of tier 1 is that it is useful in every situation.

Okay, so for, say, the Truenamer.  If you fix the broken aspect of it (skill used as a DC) does that mean that the base Truenamer is not broken?  No way.  So you say this is a definition issue?  So going by the definition of redcuing power, you are making the classes less powerful by removing the overly powerful aspects of it*.....how is that NOT making the classes less powerful?  I mean, really?  Okay, this is the deal: The casters have overpowered abilities*.  Removing these abilities will make them less powerful, by definition (they are of positive value, and the casters no longer have them, therefore the end power is less than the start power).  However, your argument is that because they are so overpowered, they are automatically removed from the game?

*These being......okay, why don't you list what are overpowered?  I know infinite loops and no-save ability damage (Shivering Touch) are on the list, but what else?)

[SorO_Lost]

Anyone who argues that Die, No Save spells are RAI is wrong.  Yes, original RAI was core direct damage, but the plethora of spells and abilities published since then indicate a general spell design philosophy that spells like that fall completely outside of both in terms of intent and in terms of just breaking the game in half.

I'm going to call BS on that one.

You think Core doesn't have saveless screw you effects?
What do you think the Power/Holy Word, Blasphemy, Irresistible Dance, Maze, Waves of X, and so on is?

All spells in Core are tailored around damage?
Only two 1st & 5th level arcane spells even deal damage in Core.

There mere fact you're sitting there ignoring spell after spell after spell after the class is designed to do this is why people are posting rebuttals. My Pelor, at least read the pages around 190ish in the PHB, that's D&D. That's what the game is. You're so far out in left field theres a fence, parking lot, and four lanes of traffic between you and the pitcher's mound.

Also for the record, I find CO games to be of the best quality. The Players understand the game and are more inclined to accept reasonable nerfs and less likely to ask for free stuff. The DM understands the game and his player's characters well enough to come up with reasonable challenges to encounter and reasonable calls to make to handle things. Simply put, CharOp skills collateral with experience, you're less likely to get a noob asking for +5 Vorpel weapons at level 2 or a DM that readily agrees with that concept.

[sirpercival]

I said, initially, in my first post, that barring certain things that I class as 'broken game mechanics' wizards don't need to be brought down in power.

I basically said that 'wizard power level doesn't include pun pun, and not including pun pun, doesn't need to be nerfed'.

That's not actually a contradiction.  I don't consider broken spells like Shivering Touch to be part of a wizard's power.  I don't consider incantatrix to be part of a wizard's power.  I consider spells and classes that do those specific things (die, no save and Free Metamagic Forevar Lulz) to not be inherent to the wizard power level, and that was a basis for all my arguments and outlined at the start of my post.

If you consider those things as inherent to the wizard's power level, then removing/discounting them is a 'nerf' or whatever.  However I don't.  It's a trick of language at best.

This is known as the "Oberoni Fallacy" (I needed to be reminded of the name, but the argument jumped out immediately).  Just because many (as you say) DMs fix the problem, doesn't mean there isn't a problem that needs fixing.

[Janaxstrus]

+8 is what my 3.5 PHB says, but the SRD says +4.

EDIT: Interesting, I know I'm looking at a 3.5 PHB but all the numbers in the book conflict with the numbers on the SRD for Righteous Might.  +8 Strength, +4 Constitution, +4 natural armor, DR starts at 5 and increases in increments of 5.  The errata on the PHB changes the values to the SRD values.

Holy shit.  I've been playing since the day 3.5 was released, and never noticed the errata on that spell.  That changes things quite a bit.

[Garryl]

All spells in Core are tailored around damage?
Only two 1st & 5th level arcane spells even deal damage in Core.

Those numbers are incorrect, but the idea is valid. I looked through the SRD's Wizard spell list once, and blasting spells are surprisingly few. Only somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the class's spells actually deal damage, and even Evocation, the iconic blasting school, has barely more than half of its spells dealing damage. Seriously, almost half of Evocation doesn't even deal any damage. My numbers may be off slightly (it's been a while, and I don't remember if I counted all spells that did any damage or if I ignored the ones that did negligible amounts as a secondary effect).

[SorO_Lost]

All spells in Core are tailored around damage?
Only two 1st & 5th level arcane spells even deal damage in Core.

Those numbers are incorrect, but the idea is valid.

Crap, missed Acid Arrow (flaming sphere and scorching ray are the others) out of 2nd level and Shadow Evocation (others; cone of cold & blight) out of 5th. >.>

I like the added emphasis on even Evocation has a bunch of none-damaging spells, nice point out.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah, which is why despite shadow evocation spells existing, banning evocation is still painful to me.  Cause SE has that annoying line about how regardlesss of the % realness, if the target will saves, any non-damaging effects do nothing at all.  So you can't just go and replace wind wall, wall of force, resilient sphere, etc...  You can choose to fail to disbelieve thankfully, so Contingency still works. 

[X-Codes]

Well, Wind Wall and Wall of Force would still work so long as the enemies didn't touch them.  Also, don't unattended objects automatically fail all saving throws?  So Shadow Wind Walls are probably effective even if the archer disbelieves them.

[StreamOfTheSky]

If the arrow maintains the enhancement from the bow while in flight, I don't see why it wouldn't also get a save as if you were wielding it.

Of course, I hate how stupidly broken wind wall is at defeating archers and am inclined to rule in favor of the archer in any circumstance where the rules aren't clearly defined.

[X-Codes]

If the arrow is non-magical, then it's non-magical, and it's also, by definition, unattended.  It might get a save if it were a +1 arrow, but the save would probably only be +1 or +3 or something (I forget if the bonus is the caster level or the enhancement bonus).

[Garryl]

If the arrow is non-magical, then it's non-magical, and it's also, by definition, unattended.  It might get a save if it were a +1 arrow, but the save would probably only be +1 or +3 or something (I forget if the bonus is the caster level or the enhancement bonus).

The bonus is as a good save for a character of the item's CL (which is triple the enhancement bonus for simple magic items with no special properties). In the case of a +1 weapon, that's a +3 modifier.

[sirpercival]

Doesn't matter.

Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell.

[X-Codes]

So, basically, Shadow Evocation is Illusion's blasting spell.

[zugschef]

you cannot automatically fail the will save because you know it's an illusion. you just fukken cast it!

[Mooncrow]

you cannot automatically fail the will save because you know it's an illusion. you just fukken cast it!

Except that pesky part of the rules that say you can voluntarily forego saving throws.  Unless there's a specific exclusion to illusions that I missed somewhere?

[StreamOfTheSky]

you cannot automatically fail the will save because you know it's an illusion. you just fukken cast it!

Self deception: The best kind of deception!


I fondly remember my cleric / Shadowcraft Mage.  Called his shadow greater mage armor, "Faith Armor."  It only worked so long as he believed in it working.   He worshipped a god of shadows, so it was pretty fitting.

[SorO_Lost]

Self deception: The best kind of deception!

I fondly remember my cleric / Shadowcraft Mage.  Called his shadow greater mage armor, "Faith Armor."  It only worked so long as he believed in it working.   He worshipped a god of shadows, so it was pretty fitting.

Funny and with the greatest punchline ever. Technically people attacking you are interacting with illusionary armor, it's their faith that makes it work.

You're character could have claimed to be creating followers every where he went with that kind of concept.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Self deception: The best kind of deception!

I fondly remember my cleric / Shadowcraft Mage.  Called his shadow greater mage armor, "Faith Armor."  It only worked so long as he believed in it working.   He worshipped a god of shadows, so it was pretty fitting.

Funny and with the greatest punchline ever. Technically people attacking you are interacting with illusionary armor, it's their faith that makes it work.

You're character could have claimed to be creating followers every where he went with that kind of concept.

Never seen shadow mage armor ruled that way.  It's a targeted spell.  Attackers may be affected by it, but they aren't the target.  Regular Mage Armor has save: will negates (harmless) and attackers don't get that will save...  Oh well, that game's long over by now anyway and his % reality was high enough that it'd be like -1 AC difference.

[SorO_Lost]

Never seen shadow mage armor ruled that way.  It's a targeted spell.  Attackers may be affected by it, but they aren't the target.  Regular Mage Armor has save: will negates (harmless) and attackers don't get that will save...  Oh well, that game's long over by now anyway and his % reality was high enough that it'd be like -1 AC difference.

I don't think there is clear rules on it, but conceptually armor adds to your AC by blocking and deflecting attacks. Unless you're going to make up some details and rules of which section of your AC is what, merely attacking you is interacting with your armor and certainly interacting with your now partially illusionary AC.