Last night a player abused the hell out of this spell, essentially locking down a 15HD monster and we are level 8. Oh the monster made it's will save every round, but round after round the player cast this spell negating the monsters turn. Hold person/monster is an all or nothing save and then the creature has to keep saving every round.
This spell has since been banned from our games. Or we were thinking about changing it so that it can only effect non-evil characters, humanoids or something similar. Because would an evil monster (in this instance a demon) really have remorse over what it's done?
Just my 2 cents on an abusive spell.
that awesome...as in awesome error of not playtesting
There a quite a lot of 'wooly' descriptions sneaking in via UM.....what does remorse mean in terms of 'game'the more i read UM the more horrible and rushed and open to abuse it it
|
(in this instance a demon)
How was a level 8 caster beating a 15 HD demon's spell resistance every round? I also would've expected a level 8 caster to run out of 4th-level spells after a couple of rounds...
It's definitely a powerful spell -- maybe a little too much for 4th-level -- but I'm not yet sure it's broken.
There is this:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/collaborators/work-area/paizo-products/pathf inder-rpg-line/ultimate-magic/chapter-5-spells/terrible-remorse
"Per Jason Bulmahn:
...
This one has a bit of an error in it. The spell was meant to end after the "do nothing round" if you made your save, not continue on, round after round.
I will see to it that this get fixed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing"
But that doesn't prevent using a spell like this as a lock down if you cast it round after round. It makes a nasty wand if it is still very effective even on a failed save!
Not a fun way to "win" an encounter.
My thought would be to change it to the creature being Staggered for 1 round if it makes its save.
|
Last night a player abused the hell out of this spell, essentially locking down a 15HD monster and we are level 8. Oh the monster made it's will save every round, but round after round the player cast this spell negating the monsters turn. Hold person/monster is an all or nothing save and then the creature has to keep saving every round.
This spell has since been banned from our games. Or we were thinking about changing it so that it can only effect non-evil characters, humanoids or something similar. Because would an evil monster (in this instance a demon) really have remorse over what it's done?
Just my 2 cents on an abusive spell.
If it saved why was it locked down...sounds like an immediate action to me. It doesn't say it can do nothing else. Don't read more into the wording than is there. Fail a save do 1d8+str it still has all of its actions. I would change to wording to make a save = as an immediate action deal 1d8+str to self, take your round, fail a save = deal 1d8+str and dazed. Much better this way I think.
If it saved why was it locked down...sounds like an immediate action to me. It doesn't say it can do nothing else. Don't read more into the wording than is there. Fail a save do 1d8+str it still has all of its actions. I would change to wording to make a save = as an immediate action deal 1d8+str to self, take your round, fail a save = deal 1d8+str and dazed. Much better this way I think.
Here is the text of the spell:
"You fill a target with such profound remorse that it begins to harm itself. Each round, the target must save or deal 1d8 points of damage + its Strength modifier to itself using an item held in its hand or with unarmed attacks. If the creature saves, it is instead frozen with sorrow, can take no actions, and takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class."It is the last sentence that makes the spell really brutal! SR is the only way to avoid all loss of actions, and if you cast it every round - lockdown.
But now that you mention it, it doesn't say when the creature attacks itself, and if it requires an action or happens during the casters turn or the creatures. My initial though is that it functions like confusion, but it isn't really specified.
EDIT: It is kind of funny that it was against a demon. What would a demon feel remorseful about? Not being evil and destructive enough?
Hmmm, this isn't the only spell in the game that allows you to make a creature lose turns with no saving throw...but then again Maze is a much higher level spell.
Okay, yeah I completely screwed up my first post, lets try this again. LOL
So for the demon to be locked down, it would have to make every one of its saves. Which for a 15 HD monster going against an 8 lvl caster should be easy enough. I'd question how the 8th lvl caster got by his spell resistance though.....
But yeah I can see how this is confusing. It really should be reversed. Make the save and you take the damage but can still act as normal, fail the save and you can't do anything.
Kind of glad I held back on buying the PDF of Ultimate magic. The more threads I read, the more stuff I see that I may not like or won't use. Im slightly interested in the Magus class but I havent read anything about it, I guess I could live with a normal Fighter/Wizard multi instead. Some threads do have me thinking some things may not have been balanced properly (or playtested enough) in this book. YMMV of course.
I'll skip ultimate combat too, and wait for another APG like book.
*** late edit- I know this particular spell in the OP was meant to be fixed/edited (assuming in an updated PDF) anyway, but I'd have been annoyed if I had the Hardcover. I dont want to cram it with printed edits or post-its.
This spell is getiing dubbed the emofier!
Kind of glad I held back on buying the PDF of Ultimate magic. The more threads I read, the more stuff I see that I may not like or won't use. Im slightly interested in the Magus class but I havent read anything about it, I guess I could live with a normal Fighter/Wizard multi instead. Some threads do have me thinking some things may not have been balanced properly (or playtested enough) in this book. YMMV of course.
I'll skip ultimate combat too, and wait for another APG like book.
*** late edit- I know this particular spell in the OP was meant to be fixed/edited (assuming in an updated PDF) anyway, but I'd have been annoyed if I had the Hardcover. I dont want to cram it with printed edits or post-its.
I have to say the forum gives a less than excellent perception of the book, but it is still a good book, not up to standard with the APG, a few more flaws and a few less than balanced options which take up very small portions of the book, but still quite excellent in my opinion and a solid buy.
Alot of new class options and archetypes for most classes, excepting the cavalier, rogue, fighter and barbarian I think taking up roughly a third of the book (roughly 80 pages), almost all good with a few underpowered but flavorful options, and maybe one option I might disallow.
A similar ammount of space for the chapters on the Words of Power and some crunch fluff dealing with new familiars, constructs, outsider binding, spellbooks, spell design and a few other subjects as well as the magus class. The magus class is quite good, and I was surprised that I actually ended up liking it alot.
Another third is made up out off new feats and spells, feats are generally balanced with one feat obviously needing errata and maybe another few feats that seem a bit weak at first glance, but liking some very much. Spell are generally good, but as always I'll find a few I dislike or find pushing the powercurve too much, like the spell in this thread.
I only paged through most parts of the book, but it seems to be a good extension on the APG in most respects, if you want a similar book I dont think you will be displeased, Ultimate Combat will be the only other APG like book coming out in short order and I have similar expectations from that book.
I hear you. I said the same thing last week... but I caved in and bought the PDF last weekend anyway... I have a negative Will save you see... :P
Let me know what you think after you thumb through it all, if thats ok. :)
Alot of new class options and archetypes for most classes, excepting the cavalier, rogue, fighter and barbarian I think taking up roughly a third of the book (roughly 80 pages), almost all good with a few underpowered but flavorful options, and maybe one option I might disallow.
This part has me bummed about not getting it. I liked these kind of options in the APG.
the stuff people are having nerd rage over could all be re written on a single page with room to spare I'n a 250 page book.
vow of poverty you can use or not use.
terrible remorse and the ice spell were editing errors.
the only thing staff haven't addressed is antagonize and really it's easilybhouse ruled.
if I have missed any sources of rage my appologies. it's a great book woth lots of good stuff.
Notice how when something bad happens everyone talks about it, but when everything is perfectly fine, nobody hears a peep? That's what's happening here.
The book isn't "perfect," but it IS "perfectly fine." 95% of the book is filled with absolutely amazing content.
If it's just these silly "reviews" that's holding you back, buy it. You won't regret it.
Buy the PDF. Use what works for you. Months down the road, go back and re-download it, with all of the nice updates and errata.
Dude, this is the best $10 I ever spent, even with all the editing issues. I would hazard to guess that the majority of the people who are angry about it are the ones who subscribe and/or pre-ordered the book. They couldn't have known about the errors and paid for the hardcover, and that irritation is understandable, but the PDF is reasonable, and you'll be able to update it later. When the 2nd or 3rd printing for UM comes around, I'll pick up a hardcover. Until then, I just loan my laptop out when people want to use the new material.
Ultimate Magic only lacked two things that I wanted: magic items, and a swarm-based druid variant. Aside from that, there are a ton of awesome themes. One of my favorites is the Storm Druid archetype. It seems really useless for what you give up, but when you imagine in your head what those abilities would be like "IRL" it's really badass (Booming voices over the howling winds and crashing thunder, and able to walk through gale force winds with little effort? Epic!).
Notice how when something bad happens everyone talks about it, but when everything is perfectly fine, nobody hears a peep? That's what's happening here.
The book isn't "perfect," but it IS "perfectly fine." 95% of the book is filled with absolutely amazing content.
If it's just these silly "reviews" that's holding you back, buy it. You won't regret it.
Sigh.
There are Alot of threads with positive feedback on these boards. What you see as "silly reviews", I see as feedback from my Paizonian peers and potential problems down the road in my own games.Im still considering if buying the book for just 1/3 of it (character options Ty Remco) along with just the Magus class is worth it.
Im VERY big on balance, non-min/maxed builds, etc. The threads about UM do give me pause.
|
Notice how when something bad happens everyone talks about it, but when everything is perfectly fine, nobody hears a peep? That's what's happening here.
The book isn't "perfect," but it IS "perfectly fine." 95% of the book is filled with absolutely amazing content.
If it's just these silly "reviews" that's holding you back, buy it. You won't regret it.
Sigh.
There are Alot of threads with positive feedback on these boards. What you see as "silly reviews", I see as feedback from my Paizonian peers and potential problems down the road in my own games.
Im still considering if buying the book for just 1/3 of it (character options Ty Remco) along with just the Magus class is worth it.
Im VERY big on balance, non-min/maxed builds, etc. The threads about UM do give me pause.
You could check it out for free on the www.d20pfsrd.com web site when it becomes available.
You could check it out for free on the www.d20pfsrd.com web site when it becomes available.
I never used that site, that's a great idea. Thx :)
|
|
Hmmm, this isn't the only spell in the game that allows you to make a creature lose turns with no saving throw...but then again Maze is a much higher level spell.That, and maze doesn't leave the target to be ripped to pieces while it's losing those actions.
A level higher than Terrible Remorse, we have Suffocation. Success = Lose a Turn. Fail = 3 more saves. Miss any of them, lose all your hit points. Unless you've got my DM, in which case failing that initial save kicks you to the lose all hit points part. Ick.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
A level higher than Terrible Remorse, we have Suffocation. Success = Lose a Turn. Fail = 3 more saves. Miss any of them, lose all your hit points. Unless you've got my DM, in which case failing that initial save kicks you to the lose all hit points part. Ick.
At the same level of suffocation we have a D&D classic: phantasmal killer. Succeed: Nothing. Fail 1 save: Take some damage. Fail 2 saves: Die. End of story. At least with suffocation you still survive after missing 2 saves if there's a cleric or someone around to stabilize you.
A level higher than Terrible Remorse, we have Suffocation. Success = Lose a Turn. Fail = 3 more saves. Miss any of them, lose all your hit points. Unless you've got my DM, in which case failing that initial save kicks you to the lose all hit points part. Ick.At the same level of suffocation we have a D&D classic: phantasmal killer. Succeed: Nothing. Fail 1 save: Take some damage. Fail 2 saves: Die. End of story. At least with suffocation you still survive after missing 2 saves if there's a cleric or someone around to stabilize you.
I think the point the OP was making was that even though the creature FAILED it's saves, it was still locked down by the caster every round.
Failing a roll and not being able to take actions is one thing (not one of the more enjoyable aspects of the game). Succeeding on your roll and still getting screwed over makes people never want to play again.
Post errata, this spell doesn't strike me as any better or worse than enervation.
|
The weirdness continues with this spell - RAW, it doesn't say anything about the creature losing its turn if it fails the save. Sure, it says the creature self-harms; but it doesn't indicate doing that even takes an action!
This leads to the bizarre image of a savvy mage making their Spellcraft check and choosing to voluntarily fail their save, preferring a few whacks with their skinny stick-man arms to losing a turn.
Now yes, I know, that's utterly not RAI - but if people start abusing this spell in organised play, it's the reading I'm tempted to go by.
BBEG's or elite single monsters easily should be able to afford the above protections.
A lot of adventures involve fighting big monsters like Purple Worms (possibly a bad example if they have low will saves) who tend to be solo, have no innate resistance, and are unlikely to be making plans to counter specific spells.
Hmm... you bring up another point... what would an "animal" have to feel remorse over?
They should errata this so that the target creature has to have an intelligence of 3 or higher for it to have any effect.
Spell is fine. Consider the following ways to defeat it:
SR
Monsters immune to Mind Affecting
Spell Turning (lol! Enjoy losing a turn!)
Antimagic Field
Be outside its short range
Globe of Invulnerability
Spell Immunity
Ring of Counterspells
Spell is fine because of rocket tag?
Hmm... you bring up another point... what would an "animal" have to feel remorse over?
They should errata this so that the target creature has to have an intelligence of 3 or higher for it to have any effect.
What about fiends? How do our good old planar psychopaths interact with the [emotion] spells?
|
|
I would imagine there would have to at least a similar set of emotional responses to human for this spell to function based on its description. I can't really see this being the case for most outsiders, creatures from the Dark Tapestry, many Underdark races, hive mind creatures, or animals (someone elses very good point!). If you limit the spell in this fashion I think it resolves the issue quite nicely. It can still affect dragons and other powerful material plane creatures, but not creatures like First World Fey, demons, devils, angels, golems, many plant creatures, etc.
Does the "fail the save" mean that you spend your action hurting yourself? Or do you just take damage and then can do stuff?
Because if you can't take actions when you fail a save, then it's just: Fail a save = no actions + damage for rounds; Pass a save = no actions 1 round.
Compare this to other 4th level attack spells it's competing against:
Enervation, Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Phantasmal Killer
The alignment smites (Holy Smite, Order's Wrath, etc)
As long as failing the save also restricts actions, then I don't see the problem. Spamming 4th level slots (1 per round) isn't that feasible until fairly high level.. at which point you are looking at Save or Die situations with a single spell anyways.
A wand of it (which only gives 50 rounds worth of no actions), is 21kgp. You are probably looking at 11th level or higher for the average person who's going to afford getting that.. which, once again, is looking at levels where you'll have access to Save or Die stuff anyways.
I would imagine there would have to at least a similar set of emotional responses to human for this spell to function based on its description. I can't really see this being the case for most outsiders, creatures from the Dark Tapestry, many Underdark races, hive mind creatures, or animals (someone elses very good point!). If you limit the spell in this fashion I think it resolves the issue quite nicely. It can still affect dragons and other powerful material plane creatures, but not creatures like First World Fey, demons, devils, angels, golems, many plant creatures, etc.
Fey strike me as highly emotional creatures in general though across the entire range of emotions, quite a few outsiders seem like they could be prone to remorse though not demons the ones with evil subtype
I can understand creatures with animal or lower intelligence, but since it's mind affecting the only things to worry about are Int 1-2 animals (the rest are defacto immune, right?).
Anything else (including Outsiders) have emotional states, and can be forced to have emotional states, even if it's uncharacteristic of their "always" alignment.
It doesn't require having flexible alignments, it would only require being capable of feeling emotions (not a mindless creature or an animal).
Yeah, the only addendum to the spell I'd have is the animal creature type exemption.
|
I would imagine there would have to at least a similar set of emotional responses to human for this spell to function based on its description. I can't really see this being the case for most outsiders, creatures from the Dark Tapestry, many Underdark races, hive mind creatures, or animals (someone elses very good point!). If you limit the spell in this fashion I think it resolves the issue quite nicely. It can still affect dragons and other powerful material plane creatures, but not creatures like First World Fey, demons, devils, angels, golems, many plant creatures, etc.Fey strike me as highly emotional creatures in general though across the entire range of emotions, quite a few outsiders seem like they could be prone to remorse though not demons the ones with evil subtype
If taken in a broader sense it is possible to feel "remorse" for doing/not doing any kind of act, even a evil one.
A demon can feel "remorse" for killing a paladin with a single stroke instead of taking the time to give him a more painful death.
As evil outsiders can feel love (even if it is generally more lust and jealousy, where the "loved" person is treated as a possession) he could feel "remorse" for falling to protect his love object or letting him/her be stolen from him.
|
|
Does the "fail the save" mean that you spend your action hurting yourself? Or do you just take damage and then can do stuff?
Because if you can't take actions when you fail a save, then it's just: Fail a save = no actions + damage for rounds; Pass a save = no actions 1 round.
Compare this to other 4th level attack spells it's competing against:
Enervation, Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Phantasmal Killer
The alignment smites (Holy Smite, Order's Wrath, etc)As long as failing the save also restricts actions, then I don't see the problem. Spamming 4th level slots (1 per round) isn't that feasible until fairly high level.. at which point you are looking at Save or Die situations with a single spell anyways.
A wand of it (which only gives 50 rounds worth of no actions), is 21kgp. You are probably looking at 11th level or higher for the average person who's going to afford getting that.. which, once again, is looking at levels where you'll have access to Save or Die stuff anyways.
I believe that the intent of the spell is to have you lose your action if you fail as well. However, the spell doesn't say 'you hurt yourself as a full-round action' - in fact, it gives no indication that hurting yourself takes any action at all. It just says you damage yourself, full stop.
RAW leads to the frankly silly idea that failing a save against this spell (especially for a low Str character) is actually better than passing, since failing causes you negligible damage (1d8-1, for your typical Str 8 wizard) and you keep your action. And lets face it, action economy trumps 1d8+Str damage any day of the week, even 1d8+Str over multiple rounds.
EDIT: I will also say that I don't believe this spell is so godawful in a home game, since if a character becomes known for spamming it, their opponents may take precautions against it, such as calm emotions or spell immunity.
My real beef is in organised play. I had this spell come up in a scenario I ran Friday night, and it turned two nail-biter fights into cakewalks as the 'boss' opponents sat there crying into their soup. And this was with a bard, with only 3 castings of it a day. I shudder to think about the impact of a sorcerer with this spell.
If taken in a broader sense it is possible to feel "remorse" for doing/not doing any kind of act, even a evil one.
A demon can feel "remorse" for killing a paladin with a single stroke instead of taking the time to give him a more painful death.
As evil outsiders can feel love (even if it is generally more lust and jealousy, where the "loved" person is treated as a possession) he could feel "remorse" for falling to protect his love object or letting him/her be stolen from him.
This is grasp at straws. Arrampicarsi sugli specchi.
When one is forced to do this to fit mechanics and gameworld, means that there is a disconnect. Which kills immersion.
BTW, this is why I dropped 4th edition. I am very disappointed.
If taken in a broader sense it is possible to feel "remorse" for doing/not doing any kind of act, even a evil one.
A demon can feel "remorse" for killing a paladin with a single stroke instead of taking the time to give him a more painful death.
As evil outsiders can feel love (even if it is generally more lust and jealousy, where the "loved" person is treated as a possession) he could feel "remorse" for falling to protect his love object or letting him/her be stolen from him.
This is grasp at straws. Arrampicarsi sugli specchi.
When one is forced to do this to fit mechanics and gameworld, means that there is a disconnect. Which kills immersion.
BTW, this is why I dropped 4th edition. I am very disappointed.
I don't think this is grasping at straws at all. It's a spell, specificially a mind-affecting one. It's supposed to make creatures do or feel something they wouldn't normally. Otherwise Charm & Dominate spells would never work. Neither would Calm Emotions for that matter.
So you are completely fine with fiends feel remorse?
So you are completely fine with fiends feel remorse?
Thematically, I think it's okay myself. Reminds me of Ghost Rider's penance stare.
Mechanically, this spell is bonkers. Losing a round without a saving throw is ridiculous. Then again, enchantment did need some love...
So you are completely fine with fiends feel remorse?
When forced to do so by a spell, absolutely. Just like I'm fine with a Celestial Pacifist being forced into a "mad, bestial frenzy" when they fail a save against the Moonstruck spell. Or roll 76% or more when affected by a Confusion spell.
I feel that the flavour of the game is slightly slipping away. Metamagic to affect undead with enchantments and death effects are on the same route.
Said this, I see your points. nevertheless, as Ellington said, the spell is still mechanically at a "What The Fey?" level.
I don't get why enchantment needed some love. or, at least, why the answer cannot be something balanced.
So, it appears the consensus is that Terrible Remorse functions as a type of weak-sauce Confusion result on a failed save (with Confusion, you do lose your actions), or an amped-up Overwhelming Grief on a made save (Overwhelming Grief has pretty much the same result with a target failing it's save, but has a duration which allows a save every round, and a made save negates all effects). Was this the intent of the designers to marry aspects of these other 2 spells of the same level?
As soon as I read Overwhelming Grief, it appeared to me as though Terrible Remorse suffered from some copy/paste error, and that the designers themselves may have confused these two 4th level enchantment spells somewhat.
I'm not a fan of LOSING your actions by MAKING your save with a 4th level spell. Comparing it to higher level SoD's doesn't wash - you have to consider level difference. The spell is now completely counter-intuitive (a result of poor design).
Way overpowered at 4th level, IMO.