Spells every wizard should know

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Bradd wrote:
>
>>>2 mirror image (illus)
>
>
> Jim Davies wrote:
>
>>Far too prone to mooks, arrows, Magic Missile, Cleave or
>>
>>Actually, in "Any successful attack against an image destroys it." I
>>assume "attack" must be a deliberate physical attack action (ie roll
>>d20 to hit) capable of doing damage; otherwise AoE spells would wipe
>>it out, as would a handful of sand. But what about shadows, Ray of
>>Frost or Ray of Enfeeblement?
>
>
> IIRC, anything that targets an image dispels it, but I don't have the
> rules handy to double-check.

From the FAQ:

"Are the multiple figments from a mirror image spell
legal targets for cleaving? That is, if you have the Cleave
feat and you hit an image and destroy it, can you then
attack another target within reach (such as another figment
from the spell or perhaps the spell user)? What about
Whirlwind Attack? Can you use this feat to attack all the
images around the spell user? What about spells that allow
multiple targets, such as magic missile? Can you aim magic
missiles at different images?"

"For all intents and purposes, the figments from a foe’s
mirror image spell are your foes. You aim your spells and your
attacks at the figments just as though they were real creatures.
Any spell you can aim at a creature you can aim at an image.
When you use a spell that allows you to select multiple
creatures as targets, such as magic missile, you can choose
multiple images as targets.
If you have the Cleave or Great Cleave feat, destroying an
image with a melee attack triggers the feat (and your cleaving
attack might well strike the spell user instead of another
image). Likewise, you can use Whirlwind Attack to strike at
any image you can reach. A Whirlwind Attack almost certainly
will allow you to strike once at the spell user."

>>And are you in control of the images? I infer so, but it doesn't say
>>so, doesn't say whether they move or teleport, whether they can appear
>>on the other side or a door, etc etc.
>
>
> Huh? I'm sure the rules answer at least a couple of those questions. For
> example, they can't appear on the other side of a door unless you have
> line-of-effect to that space. And it clearly states that you can
> rearrage the images; dunno whether that's what you meant by "control."

"Is there a way to decide which squares the figments
from a mirror image spell occupy? Or do the images
distribute themselves randomly? If it’s the latter, how does
the DM decide where they go?"

"Although the spell description says the images from a
mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user
or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images
occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that
can reach the user’s space can affect an image."

AND...

"What happens if a mirror image user is incorporeal? Are
the user’s images also incorporeal? Do attacks aimed at the
images have the incorporeal miss chance? If the incorporeal
user moves through a wall, can the images move through
the wall, too? What happens if the user goes to another
plane? Do the images go along? What if the mirror image
user employs a blink spell?"

"Incorporeal spell casters create corporeal effects. So the
figments from an incorporeal user’s mirror image spell are
themselves corporeal. Attacks aimed at the images have no
incorporeal miss chance.
The images, however, appear like the caster and move as
the caster moves. If an incorporeal user moves through a wall,
its mirror images also appear to move through the wall.
If a mirror image user moves to another plane, the images
go along. If the user also employs a blink spell, the images
blink right along with the user, and any attack aimed at an
image has the same miss chance (50%) it has if aimed at the
caster."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:hvvbh1hk5rute740g4u3ivvu1pvj1k6ar9@4ax.com...
> >> Marshall <destroyr@BRAKESiquest.net> wrote:
> >
> >Only idiots believe that friendly fire, is.
>
> Purple geese traffic freely.
> (Or to put it another way: wtf are *you* trying to say?)
>

Corrected.

> >> > So when are you actually going to use this spell?
> >>
> >> It works fine for us. Maybe you're just stupid.
> >
> >Or, as has been proven time and again, you're group is full of idiots who
> >LIKE wasting high level spell slots
>
> For definitions of "time and again" that are synonomous with "Only in
> Marshall's fevered imagination."
>

Since my "fevered imagination" bears a remarkable resemblance to reality, I
wonder where that leaves your 98.6 imagination at?
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"T. Koivula" <plistat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:df53e3$d9g$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> In news:deu7ev$1csk$1@news.iquest.net,
> Marshall <destroyr@BRAKESiquest.net> typed:
> > I've always found it easier to find a 5' gap to shoot a LB thru than
> > a 20'd circle that didnt have the parties flankers in it. Also found
> > that most of FBs range is beyond encounter distance so its not as
> > huge a bennie as it looks.
>
> "Encounter distance", what's that? Do you have a set limit on the distance
> encounters can occur at or what?
>

No set limit. Just practical experience that says that you rarely have a
meaningful encounter at more than 300ft.

> I agree that FBs full range ain't always usable but your argument seems to
> say it's never usable.
>

Not never, just in very rare circumstances will you have an opportunity, or
need, to throw an AoE that far.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:22:04 -0500, "Marshall"
<destroyr@BRAKESiquest.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Sculpt Spell is +1 spell level. While it doesnt work directly on Sonic Orb,
> the effect would be the same on a new researched spell. Single target to AoE
> is +1 spell level. Making Greater Shout around a 5th level spell effect(in
> an eighth level slot).
>
> That conludes your lesson on Evocation 301 for the day...

You are quite wrong. Firstly, Shout is a 4th level spell with area,
but no stun. We do not know how many levels the stun effect is worth.
Also Sculpt Spell only gives a 40' cone. Greater Shout has a 60' cone.
Orb of Sound caps out at about the same damage as Greater Shout,
doesn't deafen, and has no extra effect on vulnerable creatures.

Therefore, to turn Orb of Sound into Greater shout you need to add
extra damage vs certain creatures, add deafening, add area, enlarge
that area, and remove the 'roll to hit' requirement. To turn Shout
into Greater Shout you need to add more damage, increase the deafening
(and make it impossible to completely save against), add stunning, and
boost the area.

Looks like a pretty strong boost from Orb of sound for +4 levels, and
a slightly weak boost from shout - that suggests it's about right.

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Marshall <destroyr@BRAKESiquest.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
> > news:hvvbh1hk5rute740g4u3ivvu1pvj1k6ar9@4ax.com...
> >> >> Marshall <destroyr@BRAKESiquest.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Only idiots believe that friendly fire, is.
> >>
> >> Purple geese traffic freely.
> >> (Or to put it another way: wtf are *you* trying to say?)
>
> > Corrected.
>
> It still makes no sense, you idiot.

It's a common saying, with the implied "friendly" at the end of the
sentance.

I.E.

'Only idiots believe that friendly fire is (friendly).'

Now what he means by that I have no idea.

- Justisaur
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 04:34:11 -0500, "Marshall"
<destroyr@BRAKESiquest.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > I agree that FBs full range ain't always usable but your argument seems to
> > say it's never usable.
> >
>
> Not never, just in very rare circumstances will you have an opportunity, or
> need, to throw an AoE that far.

There was a considerable period in the campaign I play in where the
party's lack of arcanists was quite a handicap - Flame Strikes are
only medium range, and we really could've used some long range direct
damage. This state of affairs was only corrected by my switching from
a cleric to a loremaster with Fireball (among other spells).

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 04:48:03 -0500, "Marshall"
<destroyr@BRAKESiquest.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > You are quite wrong. Firstly, Shout is a 4th level spell with area,
> > but no stun. We do not know how many levels the stun effect is worth.
> > Also Sculpt Spell only gives a 40' cone. Greater Shout has a 60' cone.
> > Orb of Sound caps out at about the same damage as Greater Shout,
> > doesn't deafen, and has no extra effect on vulnerable creatures.
> >
> > Therefore, to turn Orb of Sound into Greater shout you need to add
> > extra damage vs certain creatures, add deafening, add area, enlarge
> > that area, and remove the 'roll to hit' requirement.
>
> So + 1 spell level for single target to AoE(which eliminates the attack
> roll), range is already better for Orb so thats no increase, and another
> level for a second secondary effect. Subtract a level for the save for half
> and SR and we get right back to GS being, maybe, a 5th level spell.

ORb of Sound is already save for half. It's close range, so to get 60'
range from it you need to be (60 - 25)/5 x 2 = 14th level. That means
the Orb has gotten a range boost unless it's a 7th+ level spell.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Behold! for "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> spake unto the
multitude thus:

>Bradd wrote:
>>> 2 mirror image (illus)
>
>Jim Davies wrote:

>> And are you in control of the images? I infer so, but it doesn't say
>> so, doesn't say whether they move or teleport, whether they can appear
>> on the other side or a door, etc etc.
>
>Huh? I'm sure the rules answer at least a couple of those questions. For
>example, they can't appear on the other side of a door unless you have
>line-of-effect to that space. And it clearly states that you can
>rearrage the images; dunno whether that's what you meant by "control."

There's bog all in the spell description, apart from a statement that
you and the images can move through each other, and the FAQ (per Some
Guy) doesn't really help much.

It's not hard to get a line of effect without being unable to move to
it (eg through a portcullis, a blade barrier, etc).

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Marshall <destroyr@BRAKESiquest.net> wrote:
>
> "Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
> news:hvvbh1hk5rute740g4u3ivvu1pvj1k6ar9@4ax.com...
>> >> Marshall <destroyr@BRAKESiquest.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Only idiots believe that friendly fire, is.
>>
>> Purple geese traffic freely.
>> (Or to put it another way: wtf are *you* trying to say?)

> Corrected.

It still makes no sense, you idiot.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 04:30:24 -0500, "Marshall"
<destroyr@BRAKESiquest.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>
>"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
>news:hvvbh1hk5rute740g4u3ivvu1pvj1k6ar9@4ax.com...
>> >> Marshall <destroyr@BRAKESiquest.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Only idiots believe that friendly fire, is.
>>
>> Purple geese traffic freely.
>> (Or to put it another way: wtf are *you* trying to say?)
>>
>
>Corrected.

It still makes no sense in context. Only idiots believe friendly fire
is... what? A larger area of effect? Friendly? A purple mushroom?

>> >> > So when are you actually going to use this spell?
>> >>
>> >> It works fine for us. Maybe you're just stupid.
>> >
>> >Or, as has been proven time and again, you're group is full of idiots who
>> >LIKE wasting high level spell slots
>>
>> For definitions of "time and again" that are synonomous with "Only in
>> Marshall's fevered imagination."
>
>Since my "fevered imagination" bears a remarkable resemblance to reality,

There you go with the fever talk again.

--
The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out
the conservative adopts them.
Samuel Clemens, "Notebook," 1935
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Behold! for "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> spake unto the
multitude thus:

>I should've left level 0 off the list anyway, since wizards get all of
>the spells for free. I guess it's still useful for sorcerers, who do all
>know /detect magic/ IME.

IMC, wizards get 1 cantrip per point of Int at 1st level and learn a
new free one every level. With all the splatbooks and stuff on the
web, it's kinda hard to justify "all", or even "all in the PHB".


--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> I should've left level 0 off the list anyway, since wizards get all of
>> the spells for free. I guess it's still useful for sorcerers, who do all
>> know /detect magic/ IME.

Jim Davies wrote:
> IMC, wizards get 1 cantrip per point of Int at 1st level and learn a
> new free one every level. With all the splatbooks and stuff on the
> web, it's kinda hard to justify "all", or even "all in the PHB".

I recently collected basic spell stats for almost all of Wizard's
sourcebooks (all the core stuff and a big chunk of the Eberron & FR
stuff). While the sourcebooks more than double the number of spells
overall, there are only a handful of new 0-level spells.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 4 Sep 2005 11:52:38 -0700, "Jeremiah" <jjrgill@hotmail.com> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> Why doesn´t somone make a list of need to have priest spells, I owuld
> myself but I am not certain of my skills there Call upon faith though
> is deffinitely one of them.

Not core, so probably not the best for a list of 'must have' spells.

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Behold! for "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> spake unto the
multitude thus:

>Jim Davies wrote:
>> IMC, wizards get 1 cantrip per point of Int at 1st level and learn a
>> new free one every level. With all the splatbooks and stuff on the
>> web, it's kinda hard to justify "all", or even "all in the PHB".
>
>I recently collected basic spell stats for almost all of Wizard's
>sourcebooks (all the core stuff and a big chunk of the Eberron & FR
>stuff). While the sourcebooks more than double the number of spells
>overall, there are only a handful of new 0-level spells.

I feel that WotC tend to ignore cantrips, probably because they become
rather irrelevant after about 7th level. I prefer low-level stuff
(below 9th level), so I've dreamt up 14 more (though not all are
Wiz/Sorc).

Dunno about 3rd party sources, as I've not bought any. I imagine that
Mongoose have an Ultimate Cantrips book with another 500.

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Behold! for Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> spake unto the multitude
thus:

>Jim Davies wrote:
>> Behold! for Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> spake unto the multitude
>> thus:
>>
>>>"Although the spell description says the images from a
>>>mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user
>>>or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images
>>>occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that
>>>can reach the user’s space can affect an image."
>>
>>
>> This [is no] help at all, unless the mage wants the images to stay in his own
>> square (which would look pretty silly if it was a Huge dragon casting
>> the spell...).
>
>Not so silly if the images are in constant motion so you can't tell
>which one is the real one.

But if the dragon fills a dozen squares, it doesn't really matter. You
merely have a somewhat fuzzy dragon. Shoot an arrow into one of its
squares, and you *WILL* hit the dragon if you hit an image. In fact
you'll probably hit multiple images *and* the dragon.

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jim Davies wrote:
> Behold! for Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> spake unto the multitude
> thus:
>
>> Jim Davies wrote:
>>> Behold! for Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> spake unto the multitude
>>> thus:
>>>
>>>> "Although the spell description says the images from a
>>>> mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user
>>>> or another image, it's easiest to assume that all the images
>>>> occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that
>>>> can reach the user's space can affect an image."
>>>
>>>
>>> This [is no] help at all, unless the mage wants the images to stay
>>> in his own square (which would look pretty silly if it was a Huge
>>> dragon casting
>>> the spell...).
>>
>> Not so silly if the images are in constant motion so you can't tell
>> which one is the real one.
>
> But if the dragon fills a dozen squares, it doesn't really matter. You
> merely have a somewhat fuzzy dragon. Shoot an arrow into one of its
> squares, and you *WILL* hit the dragon if you hit an image. In fact
> you'll probably hit multiple images *and* the dragon.

Yeah, but it's still a good defence, because no kind-hearted adventurer
could shoot a fuzzy dragon. He'd be too cute.

--
Mark.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Behold! for "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid>
spake unto the multitude thus:

>Yeah, but it's still a good defence, because no kind-hearted adventurer
>could shoot a fuzzy dragon. He'd be too cute.

Which suggests a spell:

Cute and Fuzzy (Glamer)
Level: Brd 1,Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
The subject's outline appears fuzzy., making him seem cute, cuddly and
generally adorable.
Any Good opponent of Intelligence 3 or more attempting to strike or
otherwise directly attack the warded creature, even with a targeted
spell, must attempt a Will save. If the save succeeds, the opponent
can attack normally and is unaffected by that casting of the spell. If
the save fails, the opponent can't follow through with the attack,
that part of its action is lost, and it can't directly attack the
warded creature for the duration of the spell. Those not attempting to
attack the subject remain unaffected. This spell does not prevent the
warded creature from being attacked or affected by area or effect
spells. The subject cannot attack without breaking the spell but may
use nonattack spells or otherwise act.
Neutral opponents are treated as Good, but gain +4 to the saving
throw. Evil or unintelligent opponents ignore the spell.
Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect
(though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).


Balance-wise, it's like Sanctuary but visual and ineffective against
non-good with longer duration.

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jim Davies wrote:
> Behold! for Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> spake unto the multitude
> thus:
>
>
>>Jim Davies wrote:
>>
>>>Behold! for Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> spake unto the multitude
>>>thus:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Although the spell description says the images from a
>>>>mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user
>>>>or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images
>>>>occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that
>>>>can reach the user’s space can affect an image."
>>>
>>>
>>>This [is no] help at all, unless the mage wants the images to stay in his own
>>>square (which would look pretty silly if it was a Huge dragon casting
>>>the spell...).
>>
>>Not so silly if the images are in constant motion so you can't tell
>>which one is the real one.
>
>
> But if the dragon fills a dozen squares, it doesn't really matter. You
> merely have a somewhat fuzzy dragon. Shoot an arrow into one of its
> squares, and you *WILL* hit the dragon if you hit an image. In fact
> you'll probably hit multiple images *and* the dragon.

No, since the images themselves are legal targets, any arrow which hits
one by definition won't hit the dragon. It's not like there's one real
dragon and 5 fuzzy ones; they're all fuzzy, so you actually can't tell
which one you'll hit even by aiming.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Behold! for Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> spake unto the multitude
thus:

>No, since the images themselves are legal targets, any arrow which hits
>one by definition won't hit the dragon. It's not like there's one real
>dragon and 5 fuzzy ones; they're all fuzzy, so you actually can't tell
>which one you'll hit even by aiming.

But why not? It's a figment, so it doesn't have any physical substance
and the weapon must pass straight through it. So if it's entered the
same square as several other images and a dragon, each of which is
many times the size of a square, what's to stop it hitting them?

You might at a pinch claim the 50% miss chance on each image for not
being able to see the target (it being obscured by the first image)
but even that is kinda feeble.


--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jim Davies wrote:
> Behold! for Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> spake unto the multitude
> thus:
>
>
>>No, since the images themselves are legal targets, any arrow which hits
>>one by definition won't hit the dragon. It's not like there's one real
>>dragon and 5 fuzzy ones; they're all fuzzy, so you actually can't tell
>>which one you'll hit even by aiming.
>
>
> But why not? It's a figment, so it doesn't have any physical substance
> and the weapon must pass straight through it. So if it's entered the
> same square as several other images and a dragon, each of which is
> many times the size of a square, what's to stop it hitting them?

Although even the book is sometimes loose on usage, don't confuse
"space" with "square." Nearly all creatures are smaller than the space
they occupy on the grid, and even a dragon doesn't necessarily fill
every square in its space; and just as a character is assumed to be
shifting about in its space constantly during combat, so are the
figments from Mirror Image. There's nothing that says they will
necessarily all be in a line with each other so as to be hit in the
manner you describe.

> You might at a pinch claim the 50% miss chance on each image for not
> being able to see the target (it being obscured by the first image)
> but even that is kinda feeble.

Not really. The only way you could say that Mirror Image is useless
would be for a monster that entirely fills its space, like a gelatinous
cube for example, and how you'd even get the spell effect applied to one
in the first place calls for some rather unusual presuppositions.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Repent Some Guy!" said the Ticktockman. "Get Stuffed!" Some Guy replied.
Then he added:

> Not really. The only way you could say that Mirror Image is useless
> would be for a monster that entirely fills its space, like a gelatinous
> cube for example, and how you'd even get the spell effect applied to one
> in the first place calls for some rather unusual presuppositions.
>

So now we have a gelatinous cube sorcerer to go with our sto-roper bard and
gas spore paladin. I supose we need a flumph cleric to complete the set.

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it's us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Billy Yank wrote:
> "Repent Some Guy!" said the Ticktockman. "Get Stuffed!" Some Guy replied.
> Then he added:
>
> > Not really. The only way you could say that Mirror Image is useless
> > would be for a monster that entirely fills its space, like a gelatinous
> > cube for example, and how you'd even get the spell effect applied to one
> > in the first place calls for some rather unusual presuppositions.
> >
>
> So now we have a gelatinous cube sorcerer to go with our sto-roper bard and
> gas spore paladin. I supose we need a flumph cleric to complete the set.
>

Nah, the Fumph should be an exotic weapon master. Or maybe a rogue.
Hmm. Druid or Ranger might be appropriate too... Yes, definitely
Druid. That way they can be a floating bird bath for their animal
companion & entourage.

- Justisaur