[OOC] Return to the Rusty Rat

[DM Surranó]

Yes please, it's no longer turn based, I encourage AT LEAST as much dialogue as needed to convince each other to work together but you may keep chatting as you feel appropriate for the characters.

Sent from my HUAWEI SCL-L01 using Tapatalk

[Toot]

I thought of a couple of new spells for Toot.  They come from the Spell Compendium and are called:

Snake's Swiftness
Snake's Swiftness, Mass.

[DM Surranó]

SS - maybe, will check a few things.
SS, Mass - No way. Even if it would be 5th level.

[Toot]

I respect your decision but may I ask why you are so opposed to Mass Snake Swiftness?  I could be missing something but the spell appears to be basically a limited one round haste.  Everyone in a 20' range gets one attack.  Unlike haste it doesn't have any bonus to attack, AC or Reflex save and it doesn't have any bonus to movement.  Haste is a much more powerful spell.  It's a 3rd level spell for wizards and I'm sure if they had a choice they would pick Haste over Mass Snake's Swiftness.  The only class that it would make sense for is Druids who get it at level 2 but don't have spells like fireball or haste to compete with it for the slot.

[DM Surranó]

There are some aspects, like
- haste being close range while SSM is medium plus burst radius
- haste restricting distance of any two to 30ft while SSM burst radius 20' implies it may affect allies up to 40 ft away
- haste having a limit of one target creature per level while SSM cast on a tightly packed squad may affect up to 44 S/M creatures (up to 176 tiny ones...)

but most of all I am concerned about bringing stuff out of sequence. Someone may build upon a strategy where only one person can attack and giving an extra attack to that one person (e.g. the party mage with lowest BAB is the only one whose multiple-use ranged touch spell can affect the opponent) and it would be completely imbalanced by the casting of a first level spell. And yes, this is why I have not decided about the non-mass version either.

as a side note; I've considered allowing 3.0 version of haste for a long time in my 3.5 DM'ing career as an alternative to the 3.5 version (i.e. them being two completely independent spells, the 3.0 version being called "Greater Haste". There are still other spells which I consider having multiple variants; like fly or ability enhancers (both having 'combat' and 'overland' variants)

[Toot]

There are some aspects, like
- haste being close range while SSM is medium plus burst radius
- haste restricting distance of any two to 30ft while SSM burst radius 20' implies it may affect allies up to 40 ft away
- haste having a limit of one target creature per level while SSM cast on a tightly packed squad may affect up to 44 S/M creatures (up to 176 tiny ones...)

but most of all I am concerned about bringing stuff out of sequence. Someone may build upon a strategy where only one person can attack and giving an extra attack to that one person (e.g. the party mage with lowest BAB is the only one whose multiple-use ranged touch spell can affect the opponent) and it would be completely imbalanced by the casting of a first level spell. And yes, this is why I have not decided about the non-mass version either.

as a side note; I've considered allowing 3.0 version of haste for a long time in my 3.5 DM'ing career as an alternative to the 3.5 version (i.e. them being two completely independent spells, the 3.0 version being called "Greater Haste". There are still other spells which I consider having multiple variants; like fly or ability enhancers (both having 'combat' and 'overland' variants)

Well, it's still only one round.  Range is not likely to come into effect because how often do groups split up where they wouldn't be effected by a haste as haste is basically 15' radius while MSS is 20' radius?  As far as the number of creatures, it's highly unlikely that a group would have 44 party members.  But even if they did have a large number of members with companions included, they aren't allowed to move to make that extra attack.  Not even a 5' step.  They have to be standing within reach of an enemy or have a range weapon handy for it to work.  Also it's not stackable with haste or any other spell that gives you an additional attack.

It's also fairly useless to wizards since Haste is soooo much better.  So it's only really the Druid which gets use out of the spell.  And as a druid I have found the core spell list rather lacking.  I don't believe you can make another range spell do more attacks then normally possible.  Most if not all state you can only attack once per round.  Produce flame could allow you multiple attacks but each attack lowers the duration by 1 minute so you're just speeding up how quickly you exhaust the spell.

Most the spells you mention to enhance are great for mages which just expand the gap of power Mages already lord over divine casters.

I didn't mean to go on for so long.  I sometimes just like to debate.  In the end it doesn't matter because you've already decided the spells are too powerful.  Thanks for the consideration.

[Torin]

Some spells which are interesting for me (and some of them for the others too):
- 1st level:
Conviction - NO
Ebon Eyes - NO
Resurgence - Yes but with some clarification (if a save would not normally cause the effect to "end immediately" nor will resurgence).
Vigor, Lesse - YES

- 2nd level:
Close Wounds - Yes but it has *only* the death-prevention effect (no "regular" cure). Because I like *that* idea. What I dislike is tossing around immediate spells if a plain CLW would do the job (as a std action).
Divine Insight - NO
Ghost Touch Armor - NO
Lore of the Gods - YES, but just +5

- 3rd level:
Conviction, Mass - NO
Resist Energy, Mass - NO
Vigor - YES
Vigor, Mass Lesser - NO

- 4th level:
Planar Exchange. Lesser - NO
Recitation - YES
Shield of Faith, Mass - NO

[DM Surranó]

A quick note before the decisive list. The druids' (and clerics' and etc...) spells are so much weaker than wizards' and sorcerers' because it's not their primary class feature. You play your druid exceptionally, very cleverly utilising spontaneous summoning and very convincing on tactics. I don't have the feeling here that you would be any less powerful than any of the other PCs.

Now the decisive list.

SS: Yes. Particularly because I love buffers
SS, Mass: No.

Conviction: No. Compared to Doom.
Ebon eyes: No. Compared to Darkvision. But nice try.
Resurgence: Yes but with some clarification (if a save would not normally cause the effect to "end immediately" nor will resurgence).
Vigor, Lesser: Yes.

Close Wounds: Yes but it has *only* the death-prevention effect (no "regular" cure). Because I like *that* idea. What I dislike is tossing around immediate spells if a plain CLW would do the job (as a std action).
Divine Insight: No. Compared to magic items giving +5 skill bonus and True Seeing.
Ghost Touch Armor: No. GTA is created by casting plane shift.
Lore of the Gods: Yes, +5. No, +10. (I know, I know... Lirr knows... )

Conviction, Mass: No. Add to the above that a Mass spell should be +4 levels beyond non-mass one.
RE, Mass: No. Should be 4 levels above RE.
Vigor: Yes.
Vigor, Mass Lesser: No. Should be 4 levels above V,L.

PE, Lesser: No. Compared to simultaneous casting of Plane Shift and SuMo V
Recitation: Yes.
SoF, Mass: No. Should be 4 levels above SoF

[Torin]

Ah, so I am a human guard. But which city?

Maybe you should be a pride orc guard from San Francisco:

[Toot]

Well I withdraw my request for the snake swiftness spell.  I honestly didn't think it was going to unbalance Toot but if you think it will then I'm fine with that as I wasn't trying to give him any special advantage.

A quick note before the decisive list. The druids' (and clerics' and etc...) spells are so much weaker than wizards' and sorcerers' because it's not their primary class feature. You play your druid exceptionally, very cleverly utilising spontaneous summoning and very convincing on tactics. I don't have the feeling here that you would be any less powerful than any of the other PCs.

I respectfully have to disagree.  If any class has 9 spell levels of casting then spell casting is a primary class feature.  If you meant that it is not a class feature for clerics and druids to blow things up as well as wizards/sorcerers then I would agree more so for clerics than druids.  Due to their elemental natures druids sit between clerics and wizards for damaging spells.  It's why spells like Firestorm are given to druids before for clerics.

If I play Toot well, it has nothing really to do with core Druids being so powerful that they wouldn't need some extra spells to round them out.  I just love spellcasters and I like to try to think outside the box when using their spells.  When confronting Torin and Portho I did feel a little at a disadvantage.  I'm sure that disadvantage would have been more pronounced if they knew I was a threat and really did want to kick my ass.