What are the most broken spell combinations you can think of?

What are the most broken spell combinations you can think of?


  1. Grease plus AoE damage over time spell: Example Stinking Cloud + Grease = dead monsters 25% of the time.

  2. Hold Person plus AoE damage over time spell: Example Stinking Cloud + Hold Person + Flaming Sphere = dead BBEG in a few rounds.

  3. Web plus AoE damage over time spell: Example Stinking Cloud + Web = dead monsters about 25% of the time.

  4. Ray of Frost plus Flaming Sphere or Stinking Cloud = Hustling monsters or dead monsters, either way very effective (note a dwarven fighter is unaffected by Stinking Cloud).


Any more potentially deadly spell combinations?
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
So any sustain or area spell plus a method of slowing / stopping them.  This isn't something thats new to D&D.

I recall many a day my players would open a door, fill a room with death and hold the door shut untill the screaming stopped.

I realise I'm not adding much but I'm keeping an eye on the thread as I'm interested. 
So any sustain or area spell plus a method of slowing / stopping them.  This isn't something thats new to D&D.

I recall many a day my players would open a door, fill a room with death and hold the door shut untill the screaming stopped.

I realise I'm not adding much but I'm keeping an eye on the thread as I'm interested. 



Yes, that would be the kind of things we want to prevent. In 3.xE many spells would have this effect, grease, evard's tentacles, solid fog, etc...etc... we want to prevent the synergies of two spells together from making the Wizard put every other class to shame...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Here a cheap trick. 

1. Ready action to cast grease.
2. cast it front of monster charging at you. If DM nice, he might give the monster a disvantage for charging arcoss a gease floor.  
3. Cast Burning hand on the prone monster.
4. ???
5. Profit! 
Here a cheap trick. 

1. Ready action to cast grease.
2. cast it front of monster charging at you. If DM nice, he might give the monster a disvantage for charging arcoss a gease floor.  
3. Cast Burning hand on the prone monster.
4. ???
5. Profit! 



4d4 damage + the grease starts on fire... nice...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Why would we want to prevent those combinations altogether? Those would simply be examples of creative and strategic players being innovative with their attacks.
So any sustain or area spell plus a method of slowing / stopping them.  This isn't something thats new to D&D.

I recall many a day my players would open a door, fill a room with death and hold the door shut untill the screaming stopped.

I realise I'm not adding much but I'm keeping an eye on the thread as I'm interested. 



I don't know if I have ever seen that work in a game.  The monsters would flee out the back exit and then regroup, ready to with traps or whatever else they could throw at the party.  I am sure it could work if the monsters were in a room with only one entrance and the party knew that somehow, but I have never been in that particular situation.  Most of the monsters I have faced in the game did not group in rooms with only one exit, at least not in numbers that would make this tactic worthwhile.  

I can see places where spells can be combined to great effect, but that requires a spell caster to use two or more limited resources to create that effect, which as it stands now is pretty costly.   It also requires additional conditions to be met and the caster to prepare those spells in anticipating that those conditions are met during that adventuring day.  Lots of variables there with only a few under the players control.  I can see where at higher levels it can be more of a concern and I would like to see how they handle those levels.
Here a cheap trick. 

1. Ready action to cast grease.
2. cast it front of monster charging at you. If DM nice, he might give the monster a disvantage for charging arcoss a gease floor.  
3. Cast Burning hand on the prone monster.
4. ???
5. Profit! 



4d4 damage + the grease starts on fire... nice...




I don't think the grease from the grease spell has been flamable since 1e and maybe 2e.  
I love this game. 

1.Rightous Brand: first time you hit this creature, you do 2d6 damage. For one minute, your first hit on  this creature per turn does 2d6 damage. 
2. Battle Psalm: Pick any number of creatures witin 50ft. Attacks against those creatures do extra 3 holy damage for 1 minute.
3. Gang up on the Big Boss.
4. ???
5. Profit! 
As a Dwarven Wizard, run up into the middle of a group of enemies and cast Stinking Cloud on yourself. You take no damage, but the enemies have to take OAs to get away from you. Works the same way with a Dwarven Fighter...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Prayer and Bane. That's automatic +3 AC right there for 9 rounds. That bonus alone gives you an auto win for the encounter. 
I'm just glad Lokaire is not in charge of D&D Next.

AOEs would be nerfed to the point of uselessness and there would be no DOTS.

There wouldn't be any shovels and bows otherwise the PCs could dig a hole, conceal it, lure the monsters into the hole and shoot the monsters trapped inside it.

There wouldn't be oil otherwise the PCs might lure the monsters into a room full of it, put it on fire and trap the critters inside it.

There wouldn't be forced movement either otherwise the PCs might push a monster off a cliff.

So far, there is one broken spell in the playtest. That's Hold Person because there is no saving throw. Hold Person + any ranged attack is broken. I really doubt it's going to stay that way. Give the game designers a break.


There wouldn't be forced movement either otherwise the PCs might push a monster off a cliff.




Better still would be to just not have cliffs (or any other form of altitude), since falling damage is the ultimate in instant death effects, and we can't have those, right?

And of course, no wizard ever memorized feather fall, because 100% of spell slots go to damage spells.
yep pretty much.
we want to prevent the synergies of two spells together from making the Wizard put every other class to shame...



We do?

Well, we could just go the route of 'Target: +Best Mod vs [Ref/Will/Fort] 1/2/3 Wpn + [5/10/15] [Element] DMG / Roll a 9 or better to end' for spells.  That would be a thrilling and infallible model which would be so blindingly exciting that I'd have to observe it from my Pathfinder game.

Innocent

That said, if we are going to go back to using things like saving throws and spells that function as, well, spells then I'd agree that some things were broken in the 3.5 days.  The first thing is that Wizards needs to not publish books upon books of spells, because each spell functions as its own mini mechanic so they need to be more properly vetted (Like 'orb' spells that bypassed Spell Resistance).  Secondly, there were some combinations that were not done well.  Spells that do not require a save typically lend themselves to broken combinations/abuse.  And sometimes spells can overlook some mechanics that were intended to balance the effect.  An example of that would be Hold Person + Slow.  Hold Person allowed you to break it if you took a full round action to do so.  Slow, however, prevented a person from taking a full round action and only allowed a standard action.  So if you combine the two the balancing effect inherit to Hold Person was bypassed.  Now, OTOH, that requires two failed saves to be put in place but I dont think that was considered in original design intent.

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

we want to prevent the synergies of two spells together from making the Wizard put every other class to shame...



We do?

Well, we could just go the route of 'Target: +Best Mod vs [Ref/Will/Fort] 1/2/3 Wpn + [5/10/15] [Element] DMG / Roll a 9 or better to end' for spells.  That would be a thrilling and infallible model which would be so blindingly exciting that I'd have to observe it from my Pathfinder game.

Innocent

That said, if we are going to go back to using things like saving throws and spells that function as, well, spells then I'd agree that some things were broken in the 3.5 days.  The first thing is that Wizards needs to not publish books upon books of spells, because each spell functions as its own mini mechanic so they need to be more properly vetted (Like 'orb' spells that bypassed Spell Resistance).  Secondly, there were some combinations that were not done well.  Spells that do not require a save typically lend themselves to broken combinations/abuse.  And sometimes spells can overlook some mechanics that were intended to balance the effect.  An example of that would be Hold Person + Slow.  Hold Person allowed you to break it if you took a full round action to do so.  Slow, however, prevented a person from taking a full round action and only allowed a standard action.  So if you combine the two the balancing effect inherit to Hold Person was bypassed.  Now, OTOH, that requires two failed saves to be put in place but I dont think that was considered in original design intent.




The worst was stuff like Grease that required a balance check that could never be made by anyone with a heavy armor. Black Tentacles with the grab mechanics was pretty bad too. Forcecage with no saving throw was also horrific. Another problem specific to 3rd edition was that you could always target your opponent's weak saving throw for a 75% (or more) chance of success.

I understand Lokaire's fear of having spells that can lock down a target with very little chance of breaking the effect. But this thread is rediculous.
Utility:
Clairvoyance / Scrying + Teleport without Error

Combat:
Mass Hold Person/Monster + Meteor Swarm

Anything:
Contact other Plane / Limited Wish / Wish + Wish
I'm just glad Lokaire is not in charge of D&D Next.

AOEs would be nerfed to the point of uselessness and there would be no DOTS.

There wouldn't be any shovels and bows otherwise the PCs could dig a hole, conceal it, lure the monsters into the hole and shoot the monsters trapped inside it.

There wouldn't be oil otherwise the PCs might lure the monsters into a room full of it, put it on fire and trap the critters inside it.

There wouldn't be forced movement either otherwise the PCs might push a monster off a cliff.

So far, there is one broken spell in the playtest. That's Hold Person because there is no saving throw. Hold Person + any ranged attack is broken. I really doubt it's going to stay that way. Give the game designers a break.




LOL! Agreed.
we want to prevent the synergies of two spells together from making the Wizard put every other class to shame...



We do?

Well, we could just go the route of 'Target: +Best Mod vs [Ref/Will/Fort] 1/2/3 Wpn + [5/10/15] [Element] DMG / Roll a 9 or better to end' for spells.  That would be a thrilling and infallible model which would be so blindingly exciting that I'd have to observe it from my Pathfinder game.

Innocent

That said, if we are going to go back to using things like saving throws and spells that function as, well, spells then I'd agree that some things were broken in the 3.5 days.  The first thing is that Wizards needs to not publish books upon books of spells, because each spell functions as its own mini mechanic so they need to be more properly vetted (Like 'orb' spells that bypassed Spell Resistance).  Secondly, there were some combinations that were not done well.  Spells that do not require a save typically lend themselves to broken combinations/abuse.  And sometimes spells can overlook some mechanics that were intended to balance the effect.  An example of that would be Hold Person + Slow.  Hold Person allowed you to break it if you took a full round action to do so.  Slow, however, prevented a person from taking a full round action and only allowed a standard action.  So if you combine the two the balancing effect inherit to Hold Person was bypassed.  Now, OTOH, that requires two failed saves to be put in place but I dont think that was considered in original design intent.




The worst was stuff like Grease that required a balance check that could never be made by anyone with a heavy armor. Black Tentacles with the grab mechanics was pretty bad too. Forcecage with no saving throw was also horrific. Another problem specific to 3rd edition was that you could always target your opponent's weak saving throw for a 75% (or more) chance of success.

I understand Lokaire's fear of having spells that can lock down a target with very little chance of breaking the effect. But this thread is rediculous.




Agreed.
Why would we want to prevent those combinations altogether? Those would simply be examples of creative and strategic players being innovative with their attacks.



Some of us don't want to do that - rewarding creative and strategic players is a good thing. All this does is punish players for daring to play a spellcaster.

That's not the answer - the answer may well be (and likely is) a combination of bringing the casters down a bit while also bringing the martial characters up into a happy medium. The answer is not, in my opinion, punishing players for choosing any particular class which fits their character concept. That is quite poor game design and/or DM'ing, I think.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

I think it required both a wizard and a cleric. But...

Flesh to stone
Rock to mud
Either raise water or purify water. Separates the solids from the liquids.

(Older editions' raise water would purify water as well, IIRC.)

I could never decide which would be more fun, spread the leftover "sand" in a desert and the water in the ocean, or pour the "sand" in the ocean and dump the water in the desert.
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity.... In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
I agree guys. 

I think the main reason why some of the DMs are mad at spellcasters(especialy wizards), because that player is doing his job right.

There one thing that the DM need to understand. It only takes 2 spells to win the encounter, period. Once the monsters are debuff or weaken, then the rest of the party can clean up.

When inside a dungeon. Web + Stinking Cloud = End encounter.  
Want to torture a dungeon? Stone to flesh.

Any slimes, gelatinous cubes, creatures with claws and so on would cause severe pain. Don't forget to slap a Magic Mouth on the wall so you can hear the inhuman screaming.

The most "broken" spell has got to be polymporph. The fix is very easy. You change shape to a creature up (or down) to one size category, and that's it. No bonus powers. No special abilities. You are just the SHAPE of the creature, you are NOT the actual creature.

So, you changed to a dragon, but you do NOT get to breathe fire. (That would require a separate spell.) You do NOT get to fly. You do NOT get any special attacks. You do NOT get more attacks.
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity.... In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.

Want to torture a dungeon? Stone to flesh.

Any slimes, gelatinous cubes, creatures with claws and so on would cause severe pain. Don't forget to slap a Magic Mouth on the wall so you can hear the inhuman screaming.

The most "broken" spell has got to be polymporph. The fix is very easy. You change shape to a creature up (or down) to one size category, and that's it. No bonus powers. No special abilities. You are just the SHAPE of the creature, you are NOT the actual creature.

So, you changed to a dragon, but you do NOT get to breathe fire. (That would require a separate spell.) You do NOT get to fly. You do NOT get any special attacks. You do NOT get more attacks.

That's what 4e Wild Shape was. You simply took the shape of something else, mechanically you were the same (HP, AC, movement, everything) but you could access your "beast form" class abilities.
Hold Person + Silence on a caster. The caster cannot move or cast spells for a minute. No save, no attack roll, no HP limit.
1.) Make everything happy.
2.) Make everything that is happy, now on fire.

I should be in charge of spells.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
1.) Make everything happy.
2.) Make everything that is happy, now on fire.

I should be in charge of spells.



Hmm.  Would Tasha's Hideous Laughter and Fireball work? 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

1.) Make everything happy.
2.) Make everything that is happy, now on fire.

I should be in charge of spells.



Hmm.  Would Tasha's Hideous Laughter and Fireball work? 


hahahah.

Well, it passes the laugh test.  So I suppose so.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
hahahah.

Well, it passes the laugh test.  So I suppose so.



Hoo-ray.  Let's add it to the list. 

Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Sign In to post comments