Summon Weapon Spells

[gooddragon1]

xxxxxxxxxxxx

[pi4t]

Is there a reason for having a single spell scaling as it does? It would be more normal to have different iterations of the spell (so Summon Staff I, II, III, ...) rather than one spell that has different effects in different spell slots.

I'd also recommend against giving the wizard an AC bonus. Shield already gives a shield bonus, and Shield of Faith gives a deflection bonus (and is reserved for divine casters, incidentally).

It might also be worth clarifying that the enhancement bonus can't go above +5 (which would, of course, be automatic if you just made 6 versions of each spell).

[gooddragon1]

Is there a reason for having a single spell scaling as it does? It would be more normal to have different iterations of the spell (so Summon Staff I, II, III, ...) rather than one spell that has different effects in different spell slots.

I'd also recommend against giving the wizard an AC bonus. Shield already gives a shield bonus, and Shield of Faith gives a deflection bonus (and is reserved for divine casters, incidentally).

It might also be worth clarifying that the enhancement bonus can't go above +5 (which would, of course, be automatic if you just made 6 versions of each spell).

Mainly scaling into epic. It also makes it easier since only one spell is necessary. Though I do like your idea of multiple different spells allowing more flexibility. Particularly perhaps in the duration department. Maybe others.

You can exceed +5, but you're not supposed to pre epic. Though I'm not sure what other bonuses to give the summon staff spell. Enough to make it interesting, but not too much as wizard's already have power. Maybe something thematic and fun.

[rferries]

Brilliant! Simple yet balanced and flavourful.

[pi4t]

Mainly scaling into epic. It also makes it easier since only one spell is necessary. Though I do like your idea of multiple different spells allowing more flexibility. Particularly perhaps in the duration department. Maybe others.

You can exceed +5, but you're not supposed to pre epic. Though I'm not sure what other bonuses to give the summon staff spell. Enough to make it interesting, but not too much as wizard's already have power. Maybe something thematic and fun.

The Wizard/Sorcerer spell can get above +5 pre-epic, by using a 7th level plus spell slot. So could any other full spellcaster who gets access to these spells (such as an archivist).

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The "heighten it for a fixed benefit" thing, which I assume you got from 5e, doesn't really work in a 3e context.

I mean, yes, you can obviously do it, spells can work however you want, but normally 3e does linear scaling by caster level and exponential scaling by spell level; a 3rd-level spell should be "worth" 2 2nd level spells, and so forth. Looking at enhancement bonuses in particular, a a 1st-level slot (magic weapon) is worth +1 and a 3rd-level slot (greater magic weapon) is worth up to +5, and that's for full casters who get things "on schedule" as opposed to half- and partial casters whose spells tend to be above the power curve since they get them late; a 6th-level version of summon [weapon] should be doing a heck of a lot more than giving you +5 to attack and damage, and a 9th-level version just giving you +8 is pretty sad.

On top of that, looking at spell levels, the normal summon weapon summons any light weapon for 1 round/level as a 2nd-level spell and all of these summon a one- or two-handed weapon for 1 minute/level as a 1st-level spell, making all of these better spells at a lower level; yes, you don't get a weapon choice with these spells, but one bow or Power-Attack-able sword is better than any number of light weapons.

Given all of that, I'd say these spells should be moved up from 1st to 2nd, and instead of the wonky preparation mechanic just giving it a +1 enhancement bonus per 4 caster levels (exactly as per greater magic weapon) would be fine; you're basically getting 1 2nd and 1 limited-3rd effect in a 2nd-level slot, which is a reasonable tradeoff.

[gooddragon1]

I'm aware that it can exceed +5 pre-epic, I was just mentioning that in general in D&D it doesn't happen. Though they're really just numbers. I think the only serious bonus is that it's harder to sunder such an object. Though I could be wrong.

I've read over the comments and thought about what I'm shooting for primarily. I could make a scaling bonus, but if I did that, it would be easy in epic to get higher and higher bonuses (whereas you'd need a feat otherwise). Theoretically, a feat could be added to make the spell scale automatically at epic if needed. Perhaps once you reach a 9th level slot. Maybe sooner, maybe even pre-epic. In that way, having a lower power level allows buffs as needed for higher power level campaigns.

I do think that the wizard staff might need a bit of a buff. I also realize that many of them are taken (ac bonus types). So I'll go with the defending enhancement. It allows a tradeoff up to the bonus. Also, it's really easy to implement since I just have to add a few sentences (turned out to be a few words).

Though I admit that other approaches have merits and could be done (actually, regarding the 5e inspiration, not really, maybe subconsciously but I haven't really read 5e). So I did think about whether or not to make the changes, but I'm feeling sticklerish for the initial idea. Thanks for the support and advice though, a lot of homebrew goes unpeached these days.

The point here besides going epic scaling was (more importantly perhaps since going above 20 seems to be iffish sometimes) to have a weapon with at least a +3 bonus by 4th level slots on paladin and ranger if their weapon gets sundered or lost or confiscated or they don't get one in the first place. Not a +5 weapon, but enough that they've got something better than a stick they picked up off the ground. Furthermore, on the summon weapon spell, some spells aren't really that good. In that spell's case I feel that the increased power is justified here because of the more straightforward and direct combat role that the ranger and paladin fill.

Edit: Halved the ac boost maximum. It's stackable, and I don't want the wizard to be more unhittable than they already are.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I've read over the comments and thought about what I'm shooting for primarily. I could make a scaling bonus, but if I did that, it would be easy in epic to get higher and higher bonuses (whereas you'd need a feat otherwise).

Lots of spells have caster level caps, and greater magic weapon explicitly caps at +5, so you can do the same here.


The point here besides going epic scaling was (more importantly perhaps since going above 20 seems to be iffish sometimes) to have a weapon with at least a +3 bonus by 4th level slots on paladin and ranger if their weapon gets sundered or lost or confiscated or they don't get one in the first place. Not a +5 weapon, but enough that they've got something better than a stick they picked up off the ground.

And why not +5? Holy sword gives you a +5 weapon, plus holy for a +7 equivalent, plus a constant magic circle against evil, all for a 4th-level slot; it's only a round/level duration, but Battle Blessing and DMM mean that having the spell up when it matters isn't hard. A plain ol' +5 weapon for 1 hour/level is very underwhelming in a 4th-level slot, particularly since the chances that they have no party cleric giving them GMW, no primary magic weapon, and so forth are extremely low at level 14 when the paladin and ranger finally get 4th level slots.

[Segev]

On going above +5, the general rule in D&D is that you have to get enhancements that are equivalent to bonuses to go above +5 pre-Epic.

I can't help but compare this to the simple first level psychic warrior power call weaponry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/callWeaponry.htm), and feel like this costs a lot of spells known for any variety. This does fit, a little, with how psi/magic tends to correlate, but I think this might go a little too far? Maybe "Call Melee Weapon" and "Call Ranged Weapon" as spells, merging several of these together.

That said, if you're happy with this balance, don't let me tell you to break it just for aesthetic reasons.

[gooddragon1]

Lots of spells have caster level caps, and greater magic weapon explicitly caps at +5, so you can do the same here.

And why not +5? Holy sword gives you a +5 weapon, plus holy for a +7 equivalent, plus a constant magic circle against evil, all for a 4th-level slot; it's only a round/level duration, but Battle Blessing and DMM mean that having the spell up when it matters isn't hard. A plain ol' +5 weapon for 1 hour/level is very underwhelming in a 4th-level slot, particularly since the chances that they have no party cleric giving them GMW, no primary magic weapon, and so forth are extremely low at level 14 when the paladin and ranger finally get 4th level slots.

Not every DM allows divine metamagic or battle blessing. It's also a 4th level spell whereas this comes online as soon as you can cast 1st level spells. It's not as good, but it is there. As for greater magic weapon, not every party may have a cleric (it's not a good idea imo, but it happens) and even if they do, if you are in a situation where you don't have a weapon, your cleric can then cast gmw on the weapon you summon.


On going above +5, the general rule in D&D is that you have to get enhancements that are equivalent to bonuses to go above +5 pre-Epic.

I can't help but compare this to the simple first level psychic warrior power call weaponry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/callWeaponry.htm), and feel like this costs a lot of spells known for any variety. This does fit, a little, with how psi/magic tends to correlate, but I think this might go a little too far? Maybe "Call Melee Weapon" and "Call Ranged Weapon" as spells, merging several of these together.

That said, if you're happy with this balance, don't let me tell you to break it just for aesthetic reasons.

That psionic power (which I did not know about previously) makes me regret that DMs sometimes have knee jerk reactions to psionics. Though I wanted to make the three damage types (bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing) available to the paladin and the ranged weapon and two ranger-ish weapons available to the ranger. Also, these spells have a lower default power level. Not as low as summon weapon for bard and assassin, but I explained the reasoning there as full base attack bonus vs average base attack bonus. That's one of the buffs that could happen, or +5 by 20th.

I considered giving the warhammer an enhancement bonus of +40,000 but the setting would have to be pretty gritty to require that.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Not every DM allows divine metamagic or battle blessing. It's also a 4th level spell whereas this comes online as soon as you can cast 1st level spells. It's not as good, but it is there. As for greater magic weapon, not every party may have a cleric (it's not a good idea imo, but it happens) and even if they do, if you are in a situation where you don't have a weapon, your cleric can then cast gmw on the weapon you summon.

I wasn't saying that you should make these spells 4th level or assuming a specific build or anything like that, just that "aiming for at least +3 by 4th level slots" is low-balling it by a lot; it's like creating a 3rd spell that deals 1d6 fire damage per level in a 5-foot burst at Close range when fireball exists with its 20-foot radius and Long range.

If you're expecting someone to cast something with a 4th-level slot, you should be comparing it to 4th-level spells on average and in aggregate, and starting with a 1st-level spell and adding linear scaling by spell slot simply doesn't match up. Not every party has a cleric, but greater magic weapon is (A) what the average party has access to, (B) neither particularly high-op nor particularly low-op, so most parties can be expected to use it, and (C) accessible in plenty of ways without a cleric in the party (other casters, wands, etc.), so it's still the gold standard for "spells that give weapons enhancement bonuses."

As for call weaponry and full vs. 3/4 BAB being a Big Deal, it's really not. A Fighter 10/War Mind 10 with Practiced Manifester and Overchannel has BAB +20 and ML up to 17, can manifest call weaponry for a weapon with a +4 enhancement bonus, and...no one really cares, because he could just buy a +5 weapon no problem, and the fact that he can create a backup weapon with a similar enhancement bonus to his main weapon is a feature, not a bug.

[Segev]

I considered giving the warhammer an enhancement bonus of +40,000 but the setting would have to be pretty gritty to require that.

Good choice. Besides, we all know that number at that point refers to the number of d6s you have to physically have on hand to play.

[gooddragon1]

I wasn't saying that you should make these spells 4th level or assuming a specific build or anything like that, just that "aiming for at least +3 by 4th level slots" is low-balling it by a lot; it's like creating a 3rd spell that deals 1d6 fire damage per level in a 5-foot burst at Close range when fireball exists with its 20-foot radius and Long range.

If you're expecting someone to cast something with a 4th-level slot, you should be comparing it to 4th-level spells on average and in aggregate, and starting with a 1st-level spell and adding linear scaling by spell slot simply doesn't match up. Not every party has a cleric, but greater magic weapon is (A) what the average party has access to, (B) neither particularly high-op nor particularly low-op, so most parties can be expected to use it, and (C) accessible in plenty of ways without a cleric in the party (other casters, wands, etc.), so it's still the gold standard for "spells that give weapons enhancement bonuses."

As for call weaponry and full vs. 3/4 BAB being a Big Deal, it's really not. A Fighter 10/War Mind 10 with Practiced Manifester and Overchannel has BAB +20 and ML up to 17, can manifest call weaponry for a weapon with a +4 enhancement bonus, and...no one really cares, because he could just buy a +5 weapon no problem, and the fact that he can create a backup weapon with a similar enhancement bonus to his main weapon is a feature, not a bug.

Mainly, I'm shooting for it as a lower level of power. Not summon weapon low, but not call weaponry. It's another spell on the list and doesn't take away anything to include it. If I was going to make a buff, I'd give it full caster level somehow for the purpose of resisting dispel checks. This is the kind of spell you prepare if something goes wrong. Holy sword is the spell you prepare with the intention of starting out a combat with it.

As for the epic scaling:
To get a higher enhancement bonus you need:
+1 Wisdom (through an item, every 4 levels, a feat, etc.)
and
Improved Spell Capacity

As mentioned earlier, if it's not strong enough for a campaign it can always be improved. In some cases it might actually be too strong for a campaign (if the DM doesn't intend for players to get much in the way of magic items, and by extension has a lower expectation of what CR they can handle as well as prohibiting other ways of getting more firepower through magic [gmw, polymorph, etc.])