3.X Spell Compendium

[Coidzor]

Was it worth shelling out the cash for? Or should I try to hawk it to one of my friends who started amassing a collection just as the transition to 4.0 made everything really scarce from 3.5 in order to recoup my losses?

[Reinboom]

Personally, I love it. Especially as a DM. Giving fast, semiunique spells to a NPC that accomplish specific functions without having to sift through miles of splat books...
Also, it does update a lot of information, and I personally found it fun to read.

[arguskos]

If you intend to keep playing 3.5 on a regular basis, keep it. If you are no longer playing 3.5, sell it to your buddy. It's a pretty solid book, and I dig it, but w/o at least semi-constant use, it's not worth keeping.

[Temp.]

This book's rules see more play in my games than those of any other beside the PHB.

It expands upon classes that will be in almost every campaign, it's almost entirely crunch (a good thing IMO -- if I want fluff, I'm sure as hell not taking that from WotC).

And it gives Paladins and Rangers all sorts of interesting things to do with their wand chambers.

[edit:] Wait, who am I to say -- Do you use it? That's the real question.

[Eldariel]

The biggest uses for the book I've experienced:
-Makes half-caster (Ranger, Paladin, Assassin, et cetera.) spellcasting worth a squat; basically all of them suddenly gain a bunch of spells that actually help with the principal aim of their class (Ranger gains spells that synergize well with TWF & Archery and Paladin gets Mount- and melee-related magic) instead of Ranger being Druid Lite & Paladin being Cleric Lite!
-Gathers a bunch of obscure splatbook material and prints a ton of unique spells. Spell Compendium has more new spells than any other book in print since PHB in my knowledge.
-Makes full casters even more powerful. Sad but true. That said, it also increases their versatility further and makes both, playing them and playing against them much more interesting (as there're now multiple similar but different spells available for just about any purpose).

So yeah, I'd say it's worth it. Ultimately, much depends on you though. But I always list Spell Compendium in the top 3 books I suggest for people to get first in 3.5 (the other two being Complete Scoundrel & Tome of Battle).

[AslanCross]

I love Spell Compendium. It gives access to the spells from a very wide spread of books; as such it is a very important resource for both DM and players if you wish to continue playing 3.5. It's definitely worth keeping.

[Thurbane]

I bought the Spell Compendium as a gift for my DM a few years back - our group has gotten a LOT of use out of it. :smallsmile:

[Dragonsdoom]

To be quite honest, and I may receive a lot of flak for this;

I don't like the Spell Compendium because many of the spells are overpowered.
Both in the games I play and the games I run we outlaw the book for play as a general rule of thumb.

The same goes for ToB as well in my group.

Now, I know many of you may find that insanely limiting or just plain stupid, but it is the way our groups play, and we feel we are better balanced for it.
Please don't look down on our playstyle as inferior, it works extremely well for us.

[Eldariel]

To be quite honest, and I may receive a lot of flak for this;

I don't like the Spell Compendium because many of the spells are overpowered.
Both in the games I play and the games I run we outlaw the book for play as a general rule of thumb.

The same goes for ToB as well in my group.

Now, I know many of you may find that insanely limiting or just plain stupid, but it is the way our groups play, and we feel we are better balanced for it.
Please don't look down on our playstyle as inferior, it works extremely well for us.

You could just ban the broken spells. I mean, Core has more broken spells than Spell Compendium (Alter Self, Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object, Shapechange, Time Stop, Gate, Lesser Planar Binding, Planar Binding, Greater Planar Binding off the top of my head, and that's just the completely busted ones; merely "stupid powerful" would cover a ton more stuff like Glitterdust, Entangle, Web, etc.) and I don't see many people banning Player's Handbook. That said, play as you wish; I'm not telling you you're playing wrong as you aren't, but I do think you could enjoy more lax limitations if you tried them.

[Curmudgeon]

Spell Compendium is worthwhile for two reasons:
It's faster to find things there than by rummaging through a pile of other books.
Some spells have changed, and WotC wants you to use the most recent versions.

[Starbuck_II]

Spell Compendium is worthwhile for two reasons:
It's faster to find things there than by rummaging through a pile of other books.
Some spells have changed, and WotC wants you to use the most recent versions.


It made Wu Jen better: That Assassin 2/Wu Jen 3 (4?) spell rocks. The Heart Killer one was made actually decent. Before it was a mook killer.

[Dragonsdoom]

You could just ban the broken spells. I mean, Core has more broken spells than Spell Compendium (Alter Self, Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object, Shapechange, Time Stop, Gate, Lesser Planar Binding, Planar Binding, Greater Planar Binding off the top of my head, and that's just the completely busted ones; merely "stupid powerful" would cover a ton more stuff like Glitterdust, Entangle, Web, etc.) and I don't see many people banning Player's Handbook. That said, play as you wish; I'm not telling you you're playing wrong as you aren't, but I do think you could enjoy more lax limitations if you tried them.

Part of the problem I have with it is the fact that not all of the spells are immediately obviously broken until play. You also end up with a good number of spells that are strait away better than anything else of that level.
If I am to lax my limitations, it will become a arms race until we eventually reach the ToB and fighters/monks become "inferior", Psionics become "reasonable" and kobolds take over the world.

[Eldariel]

If I am to lax my limitations, it will become a arms race until we eventually reach the ToB and fighters/monks become "inferior", Psionics become "reasonable" and kobolds take over the world.

Why would those things happen? I mean, sure, Psionics become "reasonable"; they are already worse than arcane or divine spellcasting so I'd even argue they are reasonable regardless of your level of play if PHB spellcasting is allowed. If your average Sorcerer isn't building to the level of being broken, same is going to apply doubly to your average Psion; breaking a Psion takes much more work than breaking a Sorcerer.


But why would an arms race occur? I mean, arms race requires a bunch of players only caring about the power of their characters and competing against each other to make the most powerful character possible. Surely your players aren't like that? Sure, introducing ToB would result in your Fighters playing Warblades, Paladins playing Crusaders & Monks playing Unarmed Swordsages instead, but that's just a change of name (something easy enough to reflavour). That would just give your melee characters more to do than "I attack again"; you'd be able to attack in a bunch of different ways!

Is switching to mechanically more robust classes necessarily a bad thing Monks already lose to straight-up Fighters & Barbarians in efficiency; if such problems aren't occurring in your playing, I don't see why ToB would create any. The imbalances already exist and if they aren't a problem, I don't see why they would become a problem with more material.


Kobolds don't take over the world in any place except the Theorethical Optimization-land; nobody actually plays with infinite loops, Wishing for Candles of Invocation or even allowing epic feats for level 1 Dragonwrought Kobolds. Those things are simple thought exercises to see what kinds of things the rules as written allow. The reason Pun-Pun was creates is to trivialize attempts at making the strongest character possible; Pun-Pun is and always will be the strongest entity in D&D stopping people who would break games trying for that title from bothering.


My experience is that splatbooks add options. With Spell Compendium, you can build a hundred more different Sorcerers/Wizards/Clerics/Druids; there are many more ways to construct one and many more spell options to thematically focus them with the addition of that book.

The biggest power boost is making Rangers & Paladins do something useful with their spellcasting; with PHB only, their spells are mostly worthless as they get them so late, but really, those two classes definitely aren't breaking anyone's games.


ToB is the only "odd bird" as it not only adds stuff, but it also improves stuff. ToB gives you new Fighter, Paladin & Monk by different names, and mechanically better matching their supposed abilities, and evening their abilities a bit compared to casters. I can see not allowing ToB; ToB classes don't require optimization to be good (just like the Druid) so if no class is being used half-way to its max potential, ToB classes can appear more powerful.

That said, I at least personally I find playing a ToB melee class tons more fun than playing a PHB melee class simply because I have more different abilities to work with giving me a greater deal of customization available in my character concept, and more options in combat. Just something to keep in mind.


Disclaimer: I don't try to "convert" you. I'm simply trying to distill what I think are baseless fears of imbalance suddenly appearing with more books allowed, and trying to bring up the positive sides of allowing more material in the game (and to address some misconceptions that commonly come up in discussions like this, and that seemed to be present in your last post).

To reiterate, if your players are powergamers to the fullest, allowing more books can be hazardous indeed (that said, a group of powergamers is also the group likely to get the most enjoyment out of extra material; it's just a delicate matter of keeping things balanced). However, if they're anything but, I'm fairly sure adding more books is actually perfectly safe especially if you make it clear that any attempts (intent being the key factor here) to break the game will be harshly penalized.

[Dragonsdoom]

But why would an arms race occur? I mean, arms race requires a bunch of players only caring about the power of their characters and competing against each other to make the most powerful character possible. Surely your players aren't like that? Sure, introducing ToB would result in your Fighters playing Warblades, Paladins playing Crusaders & Monks playing Unarmed Swordsages instead, but that's just a change of name (something easy enough to reflavour). That would just give your melee characters more to do than "I attack again"; you'd be able to attack in a bunch of different ways!
My melee players chose what they do for the specific reason that all the spellcasting they were doing was complicated enough already; they would hold no love for the martial styles of the ToB. I personally find the mechanics involved extremely stale, repetitive, stereotyped and unhelpful. If the melee classes do suffer from inferiority and need a rebalance, this is not it.


Is switching to mechanically more robust classes necessarily a bad thing Monks already lose to straight-up Fighters & Barbarians in efficiency; if such problems aren't occurring in your playing, I don't see why ToB would create any. The imbalances already exist and if they aren't a problem, I don't see why they would become a problem with more material.
Actually- I would have to say the monks in my games are potentially overpowered to some degree. I am using some material from quite obscure sourcebooks that even the apparent gap that these boards seem to see a good deal.


My experience is that splatbooks add options. With Spell Compendium, you can build a hundred more different Sorcerers/Wizards/Clerics/Druids; there are many more ways to construct one and many more spell options to thematically focus them with the addition of that book.
Part of the problem I have with the SC is the simple fact that many of the options it adds are the wrong ones. Wraithstrike? Assay Resistance? Amorphous Form? Anyspell? Benign Transposition? Blindsight? Ray of Clumsiness? None of these spells are in any way spells I want in my games.


The biggest power boost is making Rangers & Paladins do something useful with their spellcasting; with PHB only, their spells are mostly worthless as they get them so late, but really, those two classes definitely aren't breaking anyone's games.
I agree that the partial casting classes need their own tailored list of spells, but I do not consider the spells from the SC to be the correct list.


Disclaimer: I don't try to "convert" you. I'm simply trying to distill what I think are baseless fears of imbalance suddenly appearing with more books allowed, and trying to bring up the positive sides of allowing more material in the game (and to address some misconceptions that commonly come up in discussions like this, and that seemed to be present in your last post).
I understand and thank you for your disclaimer, but when you say you are not trying to convert me we both know you are trying to allow your argument to do it for you. However, I hold no hostility to you for attempting it, I would do it myself in your stead. It is not often I see a argument so well presented, and offer my compliments.:smallamused:


To reiterate, if your players are powergamers to the fullest, allowing more books can be hazardous indeed (that said, a group of powergamers is also the group likely to get the most enjoyment out of extra material; it's just a delicate matter of keeping things balanced). However, if they're anything but, I'm fairly sure adding more books is actually perfectly safe especially if you make it clear that any attempts (intent being the key factor here) to break the game will be harshly penalized.

I will not penalize my players for stumbling onto broken tactics. I would rather outlaw books than have to sit down at the table and realize what the wizard was doing for the last three sessions is completely broken and make him stop using it. Doing that requires intense times and amounts of carefully explaining why and how something is broken so the players do not feel cheated. Many such instances have cause the destruction of fun and enjoyable gaming groups because the DM had to step in and improperly explained his intent. It is something I have been guilty of on several occasions, and probably will be again in the future.
That is the reason game developers hire playtesters. Playtesting is not a fun experience all the time.

My players are not game testers, and should not have to act as such, therefore I take this my small precautionary measure and save my game because of it.

[Renegade Paladin]

The Spell Compendium sees so much use around my table that we got two. The only other books we (intentionally; there are a few that different people in the group happen to have got around the same time) have multiple copies of are the core rulebooks and the Magic Item Compendium.

[kalt]

The spell compendium was one of the best books I have. I'd recommend looking for it on ebay and trying to find yourself a little book bundle. I got mine with 4 other books for the same price that the spell compendium is going for alone.

[Toliudar]

Definitely my most-used splatbook. I LOVE not having to root through five sources to find the details of a spell.

[Kaiyanwang]

Keep. Spell. Compendium.

- Useful for Players. You can roll 653485127 sorcerers one different from each other.

- Useful for DM as Sweetrein pointed out.

- Useful for those rolled a class less implemented by wotc. I found guidelines and great spells for Shugenjas, as an example.

Most powerful spells are found in core. And, in core or outside the core, if you find something broken, ban it. Where's the problem?

But keep what's good in that book (IMHO, almost 100%, but in my campaings spellcasters swear). There is good material for several gamestyles, IMHO. Even for the unjuslty blamed evoker. Cool things.