Sorry, I did not make myself very clear. I meant that the spell component cost for Arcane Lock should just be 10 gp at most because a physical lock generally costs 10 gp,.
An ordinary quality lock is 10 gp. A superior lock would be more. An arcane lock is superior to an ordinary lock.
I don't see anything lorewise to support that argument. Anyway, the point of this thread is making rarely used spells more attractive to take. That means lowering the burden of preparation or making them just more useful. Keeping the same casting cost, duration, and effect changes nothing, so why bother?
I don't see anything lorewise to support that argument. Anyway, the point of this thread is making rarely used spells more attractive to take. That means lowering the burden of preparation or making them just more useful. Keeping the same casting cost, duration, and effect changes nothing, so why bother?
It's not keeping the same cost? A recoverable focus is much cheaper than a consumable focus, at least in the normal case of "nothing tries to bust down the door".
Practically, speaking, no it isn't. A PC in a dungeon crawl is going to expect the Arcane Lock to be broken at some point. The lock doesn't so much prevent a door from being busted or a chest from being opened as delay the amount of time it takes to do so since there are at least 2 ways to turn off or destroy the lock. And if the PC is using Arcane Lock on their personal belongings in town, they would probably use multiple locks, right? Therefore, not actually cost-effective compared to the original spell.
Practically, speaking, no it isn't. A PC in a dungeon crawl is going to expect the Arcane Lock to be broken at some point.
That's an issue of table style and what you're trying to use the lock for, but if locks never actually stop anything, the cost is irrelevant because why are you casting it in the first place.
I have already said that the main purpose of using Arcane Lock is to delay the opening of a door or chest. That is useful. Nevertheless, the lock will be broken at some point if placed in a dungeon in Room A when the party goes off to Room C or D.
Please go somewhere else. You are clearly not bothering to read what I am writing and are only here to naysay. Come back when you have something positive to contribute.
The problem you're having there is just that Arcane Lock isn't actually the spell you want to use. You want to use Hold Portal -- which doesn't exist in this edition. Arcane lock is the indefinite duration version (that has had expensive material components since at least 3e). The other option is to just change the duration of Arcane Lock to 1 hour, and add a note 'can be made permanent for 25 gp in material components'.
I think I have to agree. You seem to not want to “fix” Arcane Lock specifically, just homebrew a temporary version like Hold Portal used to be. That makes more sense I think. Maybe a 1hr/8hr/24hr spell like Hex/Hunter’s Mark? Then it could even be a 1st-level spell.
In my opinion Arcane Lock isn't intended to be used primarily for dungeoneering and analyzing every spell purely from the point of view of a player is a bad idea. Changing the cost of Arcane Lock has implications for the game world just like making Create Food And Water a ritual would. If a wizard could cast it repeatedly you'd expect to see home security companies pop up all over Waterdeep offering to password-protect your house for 2 gp a month.
As for Ray of Enfeeblement, in my home game most attack spells ignore AC; you roll against 10 + the target's bonus to dexterity saves (basically the calculation for passive checks applied to DEX saves.) This helps out a lot of spells that normally aren't worth their slot (e.g. Witch Bolt, Acid Arrow, Mordenkainen's Sword). I also run Disintegrate and Beholder eye rays this way so they're affected by conditions that give disadvantage to attacks, they no longer require sight and combo with True Strike.
True Strike already has niche uses, what kills it is the concentration. It's utterly overkill and partially defeats the point of the spell by preventing you from combining it with other attack spells that require concentration.
Why didn't you just say so earlier? Yes, Hold Portal would make more sense. Unfortunately, I don't have older edition books, so that's not something I can just pick up and look at.
Why didn't you just say so earlier? Yes, Hold Portal would make more sense. Unfortunately, I don't have older edition books, so that's not something I can just pick up and look at.
I prefer to reference things on paper. If I use the Internet for everything, it's just going to turn into an even bigger time-suck than Facebook was a few years ago.
I prefer to reference things on paper. If I use the Internet for everything, it's just going to turn into an even bigger time-suck than Facebook was a few years ago.
Last I checked 3.5e wasn't terribly hard to find in used book stores, but that depends where you are and whether they're open. However, older versions are most useful as a reference for what used to be.
I prefer to reference things on paper. If I use the Internet for everything, it's just going to turn into an even bigger time-suck than Facebook was a few years ago.
I’m sure you can find AD&D books for cheap, and IMHO they are the best sources for stuff like this since 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e were all built from that foundation.
I prefer to reference things on paper. If I use the Internet for everything, it's just going to turn into an even bigger time-suck than Facebook was a few years ago.
I’m sure you can find AD&D books for cheap, and IMHO they are the best sources for stuff like this since 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e were all built from that foundation.
It can become slightly harder to track things (for example, arcane lock was wizard lock in AD&D, and clerical spells only went 1-7) and there were things added and modified in every edition, but it's certainly the origin of a great deal of things that have persisted through the editions.
I prefer to reference things on paper. If I use the Internet for everything, it's just going to turn into an even bigger time-suck than Facebook was a few years ago.
I’m sure you can find AD&D books for cheap, and IMHO they are the best sources for stuff like this since 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e were all built from that foundation.
It can become slightly harder to track things (for example, arcane lock was wizard lock in AD&D, and clerical spells only went 1-7) and there were things added and modified in every edition, but it's certainly the origin of a great deal of things that have persisted through the editions.
I’m sure you can find AD&D books for cheap, and IMHO they are the best sources for stuff like this since 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e were all built from that foundation.
Just FYI, DriveThruRPG.com sells all the old books as high quality PDFs for $10-15 each and in many cases they also offer print on demand.
In my opinion 2e and 3.5e give the best bang-for-your-buck when it comes to doing D&D archaeology.
I’m sure you can find AD&D books for cheap, and IMHO they are the best sources for stuff like this since 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e were all built from that foundation.
Just FYI, DriveThruRPG.com sells all the old books as high quality PDFs for $10-15 each and in many cases they also offer print on demand.
In my opinion 2e and 3.5e give the best bang-for-your-buck when it comes to doing D&D archaeology.
I tend to use the 3.5e SRD and OSRIC for my old versions references, though that won't help with settings and adventures.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
An ordinary quality lock is 10 gp. A superior lock would be more. An arcane lock is superior to an ordinary lock.
I don't see anything lorewise to support that argument. Anyway, the point of this thread is making rarely used spells more attractive to take. That means lowering the burden of preparation or making them just more useful. Keeping the same casting cost, duration, and effect changes nothing, so why bother?
It's not keeping the same cost? A recoverable focus is much cheaper than a consumable focus, at least in the normal case of "nothing tries to bust down the door".
Practically, speaking, no it isn't. A PC in a dungeon crawl is going to expect the Arcane Lock to be broken at some point. The lock doesn't so much prevent a door from being busted or a chest from being opened as delay the amount of time it takes to do so since there are at least 2 ways to turn off or destroy the lock. And if the PC is using Arcane Lock on their personal belongings in town, they would probably use multiple locks, right? Therefore, not actually cost-effective compared to the original spell.
That's an issue of table style and what you're trying to use the lock for, but if locks never actually stop anything, the cost is irrelevant because why are you casting it in the first place.
I have already said that the main purpose of using Arcane Lock is to delay the opening of a door or chest. That is useful. Nevertheless, the lock will be broken at some point if placed in a dungeon in Room A when the party goes off to Room C or D.
Please go somewhere else. You are clearly not bothering to read what I am writing and are only here to naysay. Come back when you have something positive to contribute.
The problem you're having there is just that Arcane Lock isn't actually the spell you want to use. You want to use Hold Portal -- which doesn't exist in this edition. Arcane lock is the indefinite duration version (that has had expensive material components since at least 3e). The other option is to just change the duration of Arcane Lock to 1 hour, and add a note 'can be made permanent for 25 gp in material components'.
I think I have to agree. You seem to not want to “fix” Arcane Lock specifically, just homebrew a temporary version like Hold Portal used to be. That makes more sense I think. Maybe a 1hr/8hr/24hr spell like Hex/Hunter’s Mark? Then it could even be a 1st-level spell.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As for Ray of Enfeeblement, in my home game most attack spells ignore AC; you roll against 10 + the target's bonus to dexterity saves (basically the calculation for passive checks applied to DEX saves.) This helps out a lot of spells that normally aren't worth their slot (e.g. Witch Bolt, Acid Arrow, Mordenkainen's Sword). I also run Disintegrate and Beholder eye rays this way so they're affected by conditions that give disadvantage to attacks, they no longer require sight and combo with True Strike.
True Strike already has niche uses, what kills it is the concentration. It's utterly overkill and partially defeats the point of the spell by preventing you from combining it with other attack spells that require concentration.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'd probably convert hold portal like this.
Why didn't you just say so earlier? Yes, Hold Portal would make more sense. Unfortunately, I don't have older edition books, so that's not something I can just pick up and look at.
Google.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The 3.5e (and pathfinder) srd is readily findable on the internet.
I prefer to reference things on paper. If I use the Internet for everything, it's just going to turn into an even bigger time-suck than Facebook was a few years ago.
Last I checked 3.5e wasn't terribly hard to find in used book stores, but that depends where you are and whether they're open. However, older versions are most useful as a reference for what used to be.
I’m sure you can find AD&D books for cheap, and IMHO they are the best sources for stuff like this since 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e were all built from that foundation.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It can become slightly harder to track things (for example, arcane lock was wizard lock in AD&D, and clerical spells only went 1-7) and there were things added and modified in every edition, but it's certainly the origin of a great deal of things that have persisted through the editions.
All true.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Just FYI, DriveThruRPG.com sells all the old books as high quality PDFs for $10-15 each and in many cases they also offer print on demand.
In my opinion 2e and 3.5e give the best bang-for-your-buck when it comes to doing D&D archaeology.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I tend to use the 3.5e SRD and OSRIC for my old versions references, though that won't help with settings and adventures.