In Developement: New Spells and Enhancements for 4.2

[MysticTheurge]

Like boosting spells that do d6 damage to do 5 avg instead of 3.5? And spells using a d8 doing 5.5 instead of 4.5 And of course, spells with d4 do 3.5 avg instead of 2.5

Like that?

No. What amounts to a 25-50% increase in damage is insufficient, even paired with the other methods we have for up to 90% increase in damage, to balance out the enemies' 500-1000% increase in HPs.

How can I get level 2 spell as level 4 pally? That would be awesome!

Ah you got me. I typo'd. Mea culpa and all that. So now fix the sentence to read "2nd level spell" and "8th level paladin" and pretty much everything else stays the same.

I know it's not how it works in PnP, in the context of DDO it's PNP implementation would be pointless.

Pretty much every other spell has been implemented to be in keeping with the D&D version of the spell. So why should this be different?

But you're saying have no problem with it blocking Force Missiles right?

I'm saying we had this whole debate a long time ago. And the argument made was that it would suck a lot more for players if Shield didn't block force missiles. And I can kind of see that, so I stopped arguing it.

Im confused does this mean you would replace your +1 (or better) greater bane weapons with a +5 holy for mobs other than DR/good+cold iron?

I'm saying there may be people who are more willing to just use the spell than they are to try and track down greater bane weapons for everything.

I invite players who DON'T post often to maybe take a few minutes to reply to important topics and let their voices be heard.

I'd love for more people to be involved in giving feedback as well.

the nightshield spell. What will that Resist bonus stack with?

Most other Saving Throw bonuses are resistance (almost all items are) so it won't stack with them.

[Conejo]

I have a question..

the nightshield spell. What will that Resist bonus stack with?

doesn't matter. it blocks Magic Missile and (in DDO) Force Missile. anything aside from that is inconsequential.

[Gimpster]

doesn't matter. it blocks Magic Missile and (in DDO) Force Missile. anything aside from that is inconsequential.

No. The +3 resistance bonus on saving throws is much more important, considering how rare it is for a monster to ever cast Magic Missile or Force Missile on you.

Level 14 characters typically have items giving from +3 to +5 resistance bonuses on saving throws. For a cleric to drop down to resistance 3 from 5 and open up that body slot for another item is very attractive, especially when you consider that resistance 5 items are rare and can be traded for something valuable.

[Gimpster]

Pretty much every other spell has been implemented to be in keeping with the D&D version of the spell. So why should this be different?

Because the value of the spell depends on the loot level of the gameworld. Some D&D spells and class abilities essentially function as equipment replacements. In a game world with a level of loot above or below what is recommended in the DMG, you would need to raise or lower the power of those abilities to keep things balanced.

This is most obvious if you consider monks. In a world with no magic items, monks are the best melee class. But with the over-abundant items in DDO, monks would be inferior (unless Tubine buffs them in other ways, which they surely will). Similarly, the Holy Sword spell substitutes for a magic item of a certain level. In the boosted loot of DDO it is less useful than it was in PnP.

[Mad_Bombardier]

Spellsinger will make it so bard's can spend less spell points for the same effectiveness as a high level wizard/sorceror (minus the FoD/Flesh2Stone). This seems a little wrong to me.

Let's look shall we?

Otto's Resistable Dance: Spell L1 Bard, Spell L2 Arcane = +1 Arcane DC
Suggestion: L2 Bard, L3 Arcane = +1 Arcane DC
Crushing Despair, Fear: L3 Bard, L4 Arcane = +1 Arcane DC
Dominate Person, Hold Monster: L4 Bard, L5 Arcane = +1 Arcane DC
Otto's Sphere: L4 Bard, L7 Arcane = +3 Arcane DC
Mass Suggestion: L5 Bard, L6 Arcane = +1 Arcane DC

Charm Person, Blindness, Hypnotic Pattern, Mind Fog: all same level = +0 Arcane DC.

BUT, unless the Bard is only singing for himself, hidden in the corner, the song will affect all casters in the Party. So, it stays in favor of Arcane DCs. Next!

[Raithe]

BUT, unless the Bard is only singing for himself, hidden in the corner,

Which a bard is entirely capable of doing, let's not be coy about it. In PvP this is precisely what would happen.

the song will affect all casters in the Party. So, it stays in favor of Arcane DCs. Next!

Regardless of how ridiculous hiding in the corner would be, when it comes down to assessing the balance of classes you would actually give the +1 DC of the wizard or sorceror to the bard. The fact that the bard spell affects everyone in the group is just more incentive to take a bard (or build one) over another class.

[wiglin]

Which a bard is entirely capable of doing, let's not be coy about it.



Regardless of how ridiculous hiding in the corner would be, when it comes down to comparing the balance of classes you would actually give the +1 DC of the wizard or sorceror to the bard. The fact that the bard spell affects everyone in the group is just more incentive to take a bard (or build one) over another class.

The majority of players like to do damage and blow stuff up. At any given time on Fernia their are alot less bards than any other class. An increase in the bard population is not bad thing.

[Spookydodger]

The Spell Compendium version of the spell is 5/evil. I don't know where the 10/evil description is from.

My mistake. I got it from someone else whom I normally trust in this sort of thing. Still, DR5 isn't bad. It's like 10-30 virtual hitpoints more. I still wonder how many things do "evil" damage.

Since DDO Magic Circle Against Evil really does nothing more than cast PfE on everyone near by, it's pretty much the same thing.

Yes. And this is my point. For Paladins, you already get almost everything that PfE from the aura. At least if it was a continual area effect, it would be more useful to those around you, which fits in with the group-benefit lines that Paladins already have with their other Auras.

Also, since Holy Sword overwrites any magical effects on your current weapon, the odd component feature also works pretty much as in D&D with the slight added annoyance of having to carry specially prepared weapons.

Yes, they could do this. However, if they want to implement meaningful boosting spells in the future, they will have to do more than just make poor-man versions that require something silly like stacks of material component weapons. I know it works. I want it to work better. If there isn't a push, there won't be much impetus to do so.

No other damage spell in the game has had it's numbers modified because of enemy hit points why would these be any different?

(Personally, rather than argue for these three spells to be boosted, I'd rather lobby for an overall increase in damage done by damaging spells.

I believe that most damaging spells should be boosted or have the potential. The problem comes in that in order to make your spells damaging enough to compete with inflated hitpoints, one must take the metamagic enhancements. Some classes, of course, do not have access to these. I advocated that this spell has increased damage. I advocate that nearly every spell have more "base" increased damage. More than that, I advocate for the damage to stay the same and hitpoints to go back down to normal. I just did not put that I think every spell should because I was talking about this spell.

Neither clerics nor wizards have a spell that gives a resistance bonus to all saving throws. Clerics have no spell that blocks magic missiles. If there's one spell that I'm excited about it's this one.

Hence why I said "overlap". I said I liked the spell. I'm not jumping off the rafters because let's be honest, there are other spells that do this in general. Again why I said "a lot of overlap". Once you get up there in level, most of the time you're really only failing on a 1. 2 or 3 more points in saves aren't going to make a huge difference.

The force/magic missle defense is nice.
The resistance bonus is nice and stacks with various other things that usually give you moral or luck bonuses.
HOWEVER.
The part that nullifies most of this bonus is that since it's a resistance bonus, it overlaps with items that give resistance bonus. Yes, you could cast this spell and not have to wear your resistance item, but most people don't switch out spells for this.

So perhaps I should have clarified that it is not just overlap with other spells, but overlap with other items, as well.

As for blocking force-missiles, Shield has always done this, and when I made a big fuss about it once everyone told me I was making a big deal over nothing and that it was actually good for the players (which I grew to be convinced of myself).

I wasn't debating that shield has not done this, was I? I'm just curious to see the ramifications of a broad-application spell like this, blocking force-based missiles is. Shield was 1 minute in duration, gave a shield bonus that was largely wasted on otherwise unarmored casters, and was self-only. Good drawbacks for a spell that completely neuters 2 spells, one of them 4th.

Nightshield, however, gives a bonus to something more useful (though often taken care of with items), gives it to 2 categories of characters (wizards/sorcerers + clerics), lasts 1 minute per character level, and can be cast on others.

Another important question would then be: Why would you want to cast Shield unless you were hard up for a few more points of AC?

Circumstance modifiers are a huge bonus, largely because they stack with each other (unless they're from the same source). This spell is essentially a +1 to hit/skills on top of everything else for bards.

I don't think we are in disagreement with this. I think our problem here, Mystic, is that you misinterpret my reactions as displeased or irked, perhaps? Please don't confuse my otherwise underwhelming enthusiasm for being uninterested or unimpressed. I reserve the party streamers for obviously amazing things and for when they have been exposed to actual contact. I am overjoyed at the Destruction spell, for instance. It's wonderful. A great addition.

No, fascinate save is based on perform modifier, as well as your countersong roll.

I'm afraid you misunderstand me, and perhaps intentionally so? I meant that no ability granted comes from your total modifier. For instance, you only get synergy bonuses in PnP from ranks, not total modifiers. That's not true, though. There are certain newer additions to D&D that give tiers of performance, such as the active listener feat (I can't remember the name) that lets you hear the number of creatures, what type they are, and what they had for breakfast 3 days ago if you get a 35 or so. Or the Shugenja that lets you determine exact elemental composition of something on a 35. I suppose Tumble is that way, too. Allowing no AoO on 15, and rolling through an enemy square on 25. However, for the most part, the ability to do something special, that is a separate trained ability, irrespective of natural talent, is based off ranks. I don't know why you rail so heavily against what does not run perpendicular to what you say, but parallel.

They actually probably put them in because it's a pretty standard feature of dragonmark abilities, to be able to gain more uses per day.

Again with the misunderstanding. I didn't say why they were made, I said why they were put in. I know, as do many, why they exist at all. Why they were specifically put in, with little indication before that they would until just recently. You would think, with the obvious steep price of 3 feats in order to cast A spell 1/rest, you would sweeten the deal by saying "we'll be adding in enhancements to give you more uses/rest."

Paladins have no class feature like this. They got the spell from the spell of the same name in the spell compendium.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I know there's not a class-feature like this. I Was covering all my bases for any future addition that might come along. Seriously, have you woken up on the wrong side of the bed?

That is not how Holy Sword works in D&D. Yes you can cast it on an existing weapon, but it overwrites and replaces all magical effects which the weapon already has. Adding +2d6 (i.e. Holy) to an existing weapon, on top of everything else the weapon already has, would not be in keeping with the D&D rules for the spell.

Granted. But it would not overwrite the weapon's metallurgical qualities, right? It wouldn't turn adamantine into steel, correct? Additionally, it does make it a +5 Holy Sword. By the way, it doesn't overwrite, it supersedes, as per the Player's Handbook. This is a minor difference, but important to note that the qualities of the weapon before the casting are not destroyed, as "overwrite" would imply. I don't want to nitpick, I want to be absolutely crystal clear, since obviously my lack of that has lead to this in the first place.

A Good and Cold Iron weapon is actually fairly useful against creatures with that sort of DR. Also if it comes down to carrying a greater bane weapon for every time of monster I might ever run across or carrying a small stack (assuming they stack) of these specially prepared Holy Sword weapons, I might do the latter and just sell of my Greater Banes.

I beg to differ in this regard. Bane weapons, with their bonus to hit, wind up being better, in performance, than a simple good+cold-iron weapon, especially when considering that most people wind up running elite missions, at least as far as I normally see. Let's review:

Let's assume that the elite version has DR 15/ good+cold-iron
A +5 Holy Cold-iron greatsword: A +7 total bonus. +5 from +5, +2 from Holy.
vs
A +4 Greatsword of Greater Evil Outsider (GEO) Bane (an assumed +3 bonus. Normal Bane is +1. Going for +3 to make it more than fair)

Hit potential:
+5 Holy Cold-iron greatsword: (normal and GEO to-Hit bonus) +5
+4 Greatsword of GEO Bane: (Normal to hit +4 (GEO to-hit) +8.
Damage potential:
+5 Holy Cold-iron greatsword: (normal and GEO damage) 2d6+2d6+5: 9-29
+4 Greatsword of GEO Bane: (Normal) 2d6: 2-12. (GEO Damage): 2d6-(15)+3d6+4: 7-22

This gives us a 2 point min damage, and a 7 max damage benefit for the Holy Cold Iron Greatsword, but under-performance in hitting ability. The Holy Cold-Iron greatsword comes out on top.

Now add in that many bane weapons can most certainly have ANOTHER effect on top of it. From light damage such as an elemental effect to heavier damage from, say, Holy.

Damage potential: (with DR 15 assumed)
+5 Holy Cold-iron greatsword: (normal and GEO damage) 2d6+2d6+5: 9-29
+3 Acid Greatsword of GEO Bane: (Normal) 2d6+1d6: 3-18. (GEO Damage): 2d6-(15)+1d6+3d6+3: 7-27
+2 Holy Greatsword of GEO Bane: (Normal) 2d6: 2-12. (GEO Damage): 2d6-(15)+2d6+3d6+2: 7-32

So the typical weapon carried by someone has a slightly better to-hit with a sligthly inferior damage. For most paladins, you are hurting more from ability to hit, on elite, than damage. Fighters are already outpacing you in both. On the plus side, you can feel more at ease passing out a +5 holy cold-iron sword than something else, but since you would have to carry something that others specialize in, this might get difficult. Certainly it will make the choice to ditch the holy-turkey-leg from deleras out in the beginning that much easier.

This spell will be useful, don't get me wrong. It will make it easier for those without nifty weapons. Seriously, though, I don't loot that much, and I have a few decent bane weapons that are useful in this, with my Paladin.

My main contention isn't as to whether it is better than the weapon, it is that if we are going to start implementing this sort of thing, do it right, from the beginning, rather than this half-arsed implementation that requires small stacks of weapons as fodder! For example, if Evasion had just been implemented right in the first place, they could have avoided so much trouble

I've never understood this "There are other ways to get this ability (or something similar) so this new way to get it is USELESS!!" attitude people seem to have. If you have a Sigil of Earth, then yeah, maybe you'll be using Angel Skin less than other people. But come on, it's a first level spell. That means Paladins can start using it at 4th level. There aren't a lot of 4th level people with access to Sigil of Earth (or even the Stoneskin spell). Yeah it's only 2 more points of DR than Adamantine FP or the Golden Greaves, but it's 2 fewer points of damage every time you get hit. It's really not hard to see how that stacks up over time to a pretty serious effect.

And the more ways to do things, the better. Personally, here is my problem with this duplication in its current state: It's often done in a shabby fashion, and it's done at the expense of fixing things that have been busted for ages

"Here, here's another way to drive to the supermarket!"
"Yes, but I would like a way to fly to the supermarket"
"Driving... huh? Great, right?! Look! 3-wheels *wiggles the front wheel*"
"Not even water-powered?."
"Look, driving!"
"You're not listening, are you..."

It's a nice spell. It's just not great. I love DR. I wear Marrilith (sp?) chain on my cleric all the time. Saves his armored keester. It's highly underrated. And Angel-skin is self-casting, unlike the superior Stoneskin unless you are a UDM monkey (which is hard for Paladins). It's a nice spell. As I said before. Perhaps you misinterpret my "normal enthusiasm" for dislike? I don't know.

[Aesop]

I think my Bard on Thar will be goin Spellsinger... but man the others are tempting... Yeah I could see a three bard 1arcane 1tank 1rogue group... well maybe two tanks and let my Bard handle traps I suppose. Sing our songs let the Virtuoso go forth and make the bad guys drool all over themselves then let the tank widdle down the opposition. 3 bards to heal with great SP efficientcy to heal and otherwise CC. The Tanks and anyone else with aggro has a DR5 assist to mitigate damage... yeah this could be funny

probably too methodical for the bulk of players though

Aesop

[Raithe]

Let's assume that the elite version has DR 15/ good+cold-iron
...

In your post, you don't account for the fact that the DR will also negate or lessen strength bonus damage, crit damage, and even sneak attack damage. "2d6 - 15" really computes to -3 to -13, not 0.

[EspyLacopa]

Espy, anything can be put on an item, including dr/force, had a nasty DM who had a bad guy warrior with bracers of 20/force, totally negating MM and FM...caster in our party tended to abuse those spells, no save, no to hit required, only SR to check against.

So, after you killed him, did you take his bracers with Force Resistance 20?

[Spookydodger]

In your post, you don't account for the fact that the DR will also negate or lessen strength bonus damage, crit damage, and even sneak attack damage. "2d6 - 15" really computes to -3 to -13, not 0.

This is because this is independent of the weapon. Strength bonus, critical damage, sneak attack damage are all "in addition". Strength bonus and critical damage are, affected by the damage reduction.

Sneak attack damage, as far as I'm aware, bypasses DR in this game (as per a post by the devs after they changed the application of special effects (such as wounding) only upon piercing of DR. I believe they said that sneak-attack bypasses DR.

The point of all of this was that the damage difference isn't that great, what most paladins have trouble with is hitting because, while they have the same BaB as fighters, they don't often have all the feats to back it up.

All that extra-damage is going to be averaged out when you aren't able to hit as often.

So, again, I intentionally left out the other factors because they are weapon independent. Yes, it would effect damage, but not significantly more for Paladins. You're only losing about 5 points of damage. Those 5 points become irrelevant if you don't hit.

[MysticTheurge]

This is because this is independent of the weapon. Strength bonus, critical damage, sneak attack damage are all "in addition". Strength bonus and critical damage are, affected by the damage reduction.

They're not affected by the damage reduction if you bypass it. That is, you get full strength and critical damage against a Reaver (or the like) when you're wielding a Good and Cold Iron weapon.

Sneak attack damage, as far as I'm aware, bypasses DR in this game (as per a post by the devs after they changed the application of special effects (such as wounding) only upon piercing of DR. I believe they said that sneak-attack bypasses DR.

Sneak attack is affected by DR. The point that was made is that Sneak Attack damage will help you overcome DR meaning you'll do some damage and therefore "proc" your weapon not bypass DR meaning you'd deal full, normal damage.

[And just to clarify, my point wasn't ever that a +5 Holy weapon is statistically better than a +X Greater Bane (against the appropriate target), just that there's something to be said for ease of use and relative availability. Once this spell is introduced, every 14th level paladin has access to a +5 Holy weapon if they want it. The same can't be said for a full suite of Greater Bane weapons.]

[Spookydodger]

Because the value of the spell depends on the loot level of the gameworld. Some D&D spells and class abilities essentially function as equipment replacements. In a game world with a level of loot above or below what is recommended in the DMG, you would need to raise or lower the power of those abilities to keep things balanced.

This is most obvious if you consider monks. In a world with no magic items, monks are the best melee class. But with the over-abundant items in DDO, monks would be inferior (unless Tubine buffs them in other ways, which they surely will). Similarly, the Holy Sword spell substitutes for a magic item of a certain level. In the boosted loot of DDO it is less useful than it was in PnP.

Amen. It makes it hard to balance things out when you are not constantly applying things towards one state or another. Either things are going to be inflated, or they're not. Dotting the landscape with examples of each seems to be making more work later on.

[Spookydodger]

Which a bard is entirely capable of doing, let's not be coy about it. In PvP this is precisely what would happen.

You're basing your arguments off of PvP? MY GOD.

A bard would be turned to stone and incinerated before he gets in range to do much at all. Coy has nothing to do with it. You're bantering semantics on the slick precipice of madness! Let's agree that our primary opponent in this game is the environment, leave PvP as a cute quasi-world that we sometimes visit, and move along. Arguing that it would make them unbalanced in PvP will earn you long, leering glares from most Melees that regularly get destroyed in said arenas and brawling taverns.

Regardless of how ridiculous hiding in the corner would be, when it comes down to assessing the balance of classes you would actually give the +1 DC of the wizard or sorceror to the bard. The fact that the bard spell affects everyone in the group is just more incentive to take a bard (or build one) over another class.

And more power to them! What do you want to do, next? Take away Paladin auras to help melee AC? Bards don't have as ready access to the feats that Wizards do to increase their DCs simply by virtue of the number of feats they get.

You're complaining about them getting a boost in spell points and a decreased cost in spell-point usage? Bards get less mana to begin with. By a long shot. For a level 14 sorcerer, on average, you're only gaining 160 spell points by being 10% more efficient. For a bard, you're talking more like 100. And given that this requires some heavy sinking of action points and a feat, I don't think the payback is so unjustified.

[EspyLacopa]

A bard with heighten and spellsinger can eventually hit the same DC and retain a lower cost than the wizard or sorceror. The one spell you found that was different actually doesn't do anything to counter my argument.

Unless the mage *also has heighten*

[MysticTheurge]

Amen. It makes it hard to balance things out when you are not constantly applying things towards one state or another. Either things are going to be inflated, or they're not. Dotting the landscape with examples of each seems to be making more work later on.

Except of course that they've been pretty consistent.

Spells get implemented exactly in line with D&D (or very nearly so). Everything else gets inflated.

I'm certainly not happy about that, as many of you know, but it is the case so far.

[Spookydodger]

You obviously aren't getting my point, because you are claiming that the bard's ability to affect everyone else's DC somehow makes my point foundless. That ability will only make bards more popular, and it is an excess of popularity that I am worried about.

You'll understand when your wizard gets turned down for a caster spot in a PUG because the group leader wants a bard.

Were you picked last in softball a lot, or what? I have rarely seen this happen, and I even rarer that I have done this. Typically, when I turn down a caster, it's because we're rife with them already. Usually, though, its first come, first serve. Bards are great. They are really useful and little understood. Bards have needed "some loving", to use the colloquialism, for some time. This is a nice benefit. More of a benefit than virtuoso and warchanter? Perhaps. Is that more because it is so overpowered, or because of the limited play-style of most players in the game? Few even realize how amazingly powerful fascinate is. How would they expect most Bards to be more than the buffbots that they want them to be?

[MysticTheurge]

You obviously aren't getting my point, because you are claiming that the bard's ability to affect everyone else's DC somehow makes my point foundless. That ability will only make bards more popular, and it is an excess of popularity that I am worried about.

You'll understand when your wizard gets turned down for a caster spot in a PUG because the group leader wants a bard.

I have to jump into this debate and say I don't really get what you're driving at.

The +1 to DC for other people is only really helpful if there are other casters in the group, but you seem to be suggesting that this bonus is going to make bards so popular that they'll replace casters. That seems logically inconsistent. It's not a benefit to anyone else but the bard if there aren't other casters in the group.

If, in fact, the bard is the only caster in the group, you're back to the situation everyone else seems to be arguing (the whole Wiz/Sorcs can get higher DCs overall than Bards can). So it's still not the kind of benefit that's going to see all the wiz/sorc spots being replaced by bards.

Now if your big complaint is that some people might consider a X wizards + 1 Bard group more powerful than an X+1 wizards group, I just can't see how that's something anyone really needs to be that worried about. Chances are most people actually already recognize that adding a bard to the group is a pretty powerful choice, so nothing's really going to change (at least not because of the one enhancement; there is a higher chance now that people will take multiple bards, if only because having a virtuoso, a spellsinger and a warchanter in the group offers benefits that having multiple bards didn't previously offer).

[EspyLacopa]

And people, I feel I should point this out. I'll highlight and bold for ya.

Nightshield
Abjuration
Level: Clr 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Range: Personal
Duration: 1 minute/level

Grants a +1 resistance bonus to saves; this resistance bonus increases to +2 at caster level 6th and +3 at caster level 9th. In addition, this spell negates Magic Missile and Force Missile attacks directed at you.