For the most part the Core Rulebook spells are well-balanced. There's a few that can ruin your encounters, but overall there are ways to counter or deal with every spell in the core rulebook.
Now with the release of the APG and UM, we have new spells. Some of them are really making my life tough as a DM. And they are so much better than Core Rulebook spells, it's a no brainer to take them.
Here's my list that are proving to be a pain so far:
1. Calcific Touch: This spell by itself isn't such a big deal. a caster having to get in melee reach to use it makes the spell as is balanced. Even with spectral hand, a smart creature can kill the hand and slow the spell's progress.
This spell with the Reach metamagic feat (and Empower or Maximize and Reach at higher level) is a nightmare. It's an "I win" button against most big melee creatures with low touch AC. It eats there dexterity far to quickly and has no resistance to it save abiltiy immunity or spell immunity spell.
Question for designer: Did the designer bother to think about how this spell interacts with metamagic?
2. Prediction of Failure: The only defense is immunity to mind-effecting magic or immunity to fear or the sickened conditions. Otherwise this spell guarantees a -4 to attack rolls and saves and a -2 to damage. Even if you make the saving throw, the effect lasts the length of most combats. It's a range spell.
So it's basically like adding +4 to the DC of any spell with no saving throw.
Combine this spell with Battlemind Link with two casters and it's -6 on all saves against spells from the two casters.
Question to designers: Did you really think this was a well-thought out spell? Do game designers bother to check how a spell synergizes with other spells and abilities?
What are some of the spells causing DMs headaches from the UM and APG?
|
Terrible Remorse from UM 4th lvl spell when used against a single monster. It only allows SR and if they beat the SR or if the monster does not have it..the battle is pretty much over. The monster either hurts itself each round or does not and has a lower AC.
I have seen this used multiple times in PFS games where the GM is describing the boss battle or it had just begun and all the cleric does is say I am casting Terrible remorse and the Gm has literately just packed up his stuff, handed out the scenario sheets and left. The battle was not even fought and in some cases the map was not even drawn yet, they just informed the GM that they are going to cast it on the main Bad Guy and if he does not have SR, he is out for 7+rounds. So any small bad guys will be dealt with, in 1-3 rounds, then you have all the left over rounds to just slam on the main bad guy and he stands there or beats himself.
Hmm..
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
No idea if he has get it officially "fixed".
Question for designer: Did the designer bother to think about how this spell interacts with metamagic?
My impression is that designers stopped to bother to think since Persistent Spells (so, since APG).
Question for designer: Did the designer bother to think about how this spell interacts with metamagic?
...
Question to designers: Did you really think this was a well-thought out spell? Do game designers bother to check how a spell synergizes with other spells and abilities?
Question to OP: Did you really think you were going to elicit some sort of useful designer response with hostile and insulting questions?
If you are actually looking for some kind of feedback, wouldn't it be more effective to be reasonably polite? I'm not talking about fanboi posting, just an expectation that people respond better when not insulted.
All of the spells given the right circumstances are useful. Must admit though that my group uses a lot of the old staples, nothing wrong with fireball and scorching ray. APG and UM were great for the extra options, but there is never a need to use every single option.
Heck, I made a sorcerer with the Air Elemental bloodline, and she was still using the old spells that i knew and loved. I admit I used some of the newer ones, but when we needed a door down in a hurry for example, then scorching ray was amazing.
The same with the metamagic feats, they give a huge amount of extra options, but there is no compulsory thing saying you must use them now simply because you can.
As always, there is no right or wrong answer. Different strokes for different folks.
Since neither of those two spells and no APG/UM feat beats a quickened Core save-or-fail spell (hold person, dominates, flesh to stone etc. etc.), I think we can all go to sleep now.
ALMOST right.
Generally core is stronger, and metamagic feat wise UM has the opposite problem. Most metamagic feats in UM are... for... uh... roleplaying use only, people said to me.
Neverteless, Paizo should really have more care for no save effects. If you add rerolls due to witch and persistent, spell perfection, and then see that there is a bunch of "lol no save" effects (already in core), stuff goes out of hand.
It's useless don't repeat the mistake of free metamagic (and for half - metamagic rods are still there) and then add a load of those effects to the game.
@Jestem: I don't get your point. Please, elaborate.
Did you notice that the suffocation spell requires a material component of a small vial of the target's breath? That's going to take some work to set up.
Wow, never noticed that before. This should put a stick in the wheels of our party's wizard in our Kingmaker Campaign.
Did you notice that the suffocation spell requires a material component of a small vial of the target's breath? That's going to take some work to set up.
Its the caster's breath, not the targets.
bump
Did you notice that the suffocation spell requires a material component of a small vial of the target's breath? That's going to take some work to set up.Its the caster's breath, not the targets.
This. Do not screw your Wizard based on LT's incorrect reading of the spell.
|
1) Forces 3 saves, each of which is save or lose (reduced to 0 hp)
2) Is not save negates - You are forced to make all 3 saves unless it is dispelled.
3) Even if you make the saves, it's still a pretty strong debuff - makes the target Staggered.
4) It affects 90% + of targets, unlike say Mind-Affecting spells...
Now I read that spell as saying 'If you make the first save, you are staggered for one round and then the spell stops affecting you' based on the wording:
"'The target can attempt to resist this spell's effects with a Fortitude save—if he succeeds, he is merely staggered for 1 round as he gasps for breath."
Furthermore, the suffocation effect triggers on the target's turn and permits a save on their turn, which I believe to be separate from the Fort partial saving throw that the spell itself permits on the caster's turn.
Confused? I'll lay out the spell below as I understand it.
Round 1, caster's turn: Target rolls Fortitude save against the spell, as listed in the Saving Throw section. If they pass, they shake off the spell and are staggered for 1 round. The spell effect on them ends. If they fail, they begin to suffocate on their turn.
Round 1, target's turn: Target must make a Fortitude save or suffocation advances one step - dropping them to 0 hp. If they pass this save, they aren't staggered - the suffocation merely doesn't advance. The spell effect is still on them, and can be dispelled.
Round 2, target's turn: Target must make a Fortitude save or suffocation advances one step (So either to 0 hp or to -1 hp, depending on their previous save)
Round 3, target's turn: Target must make a Fortitude save or suffocation advances one step (either to 0 hp, -1 hp, or death, depending on their previous saves) and the spell then ends.
Am I interpreting this spell wrong?
1) Forces 3 saves, each of which is save or lose (reduced to 0 hp)
2) Is not save negates - You are forced to make all 3 saves unless it is dispelled.
3) Even if you make the saves, it's still a pretty strong debuff - makes the target Staggered.
4) It affects 90% + of targets, unlike say Mind-Affecting spells...
Now I read that spell as saying 'If you make the first save, you are staggered for one round and then the spell stops affecting you' based on the wording:
"'The target can attempt to resist this spell's effects with a Fortitude save—if he succeeds, he is merely staggered for 1 round as he gasps for breath."
Furthermore, the suffocation effect triggers on the target's turn and permits a save on their turn, which I believe to be separate from the Fort partial saving throw that the spell itself permits on the caster's turn.
Confused? I'll lay out the spell below as I understand it.
Round 1, caster's turn: Target rolls Fortitude save against the spell, as listed in the Saving Throw section. If they pass, they shake off the spell and are staggered for 1 round. If they fail, they begin to suffocate on their turn.
Round 1, target's turn: Target must make a Fortitude save or suffocation advances one step - dropping them to 0 hp.
Round 2, target's turn: Target must make a Fortitude save or suffocation advances one step (So either to 0 hp or to -1 hp, depending on their previous save)
Round 3, target's turn: Target must make a Fortitude save or suffocation advances one step (either to 0 hp, -1 hp, or death, depending on their previous saves) and the spell then ends.
Am I interpreting this spell wrong?
I can't decide if this is correct, or if the second line is simply letting you know how the spell progresses. This interpretation certainly makes the spell less terrifying.
EDIT: I tend to think you are probably right on how its intended.
|
|
Am I interpreting this spell wrong?I can't decide if this is correct, or if the second line is simply letting you know how the spell progresses. This interpretation certainly makes the spell less terrifying.
EDIT: I tend to think you are probably right on how its...
I know it makes more sense to me, certainly. The way it allows a save and then chucks in a save per round to prevent the spell progressing makes me think I'm looking at the spell correctly...but the text is such of a sonovagun to parse that I'm not sure I've not just gone insane and invented it all.
Arguments against my interpretation: Complicated as all get out. Would someone really write such an overcomplicated spell?
The problem is the no save effects. core has few, and we see a proliferation.
this has been already pointed out in the gunslinger playtest, with the "lol you stunned" deed.
IN A GAME WITH LEVELS OF POWER, DEADLY ATTACKS AND LEVEL BASED DEFENSES NO SAVE EFFECTS ARE AT BEST SUSPECTS.
Overwhelming Presence has become my Number 1 pick for caster BBEGs. It is an absolutely brutal way to take several characters out of the fight at once. Then add in a Maze on the most dangerous character immune to compulsions, and the villain has pretty handily swung the action economy back in his favor.
Question for designer: Did the designer bother to think about how this spell interacts with metamagic?
...
Question to designers: Did you really think this was a well-thought out spell? Do game designers bother to check how a spell synergizes with other spells and abilities?Question to OP: Did you really think you were going to elicit some sort of useful designer response with hostile and insulting questions?
If you are actually looking for some kind of feedback, wouldn't it be more effective to be reasonably polite? I'm not talking about fanboi posting, just an expectation that people respond better when not insulted.
I wasn't expecting the designers to respond. They rarely change spells once in the game. Even the clarification and hopefully future eratta for Terrible Remorse does not change that is an auto-win spell against any boss without SR and can be made into a wand. Did they change the spell or do you think they will?
I've already read response from the designer of Calcific Touch. He thinks the spell is acceptable as is. About all he did was indicate "It's only once a round no matter what" as though that helped. I do not think he thought about the spell Reached and Maximized or Empowered.
Same with Prediction of Failure. I doubt they change it.
My only option as a DM is to remove them from the game. My hope is that if such spells are brought up, they do a better job vetting spells in future books.
This is exactly how things went with the previous 3E game and future spells released such as those in the Spell Compendium. I think Paizo shouold be proactive in making sure their game isn't damaged by releasing spells that do not interact well with the rules and create situations for DMs that make the game ridiculous.
Whether or not they respond or look at this thread is up to them. I don't expect a response. It's more a chance for a DM rant thread. For us DMs these darn spells make that much harder to run.
Now these spells are in circulation. If Paizo were to make a hard change like they should, they will have to list them in eratta. Which is doubtful.
Since neither of those two spells and no APG/UM feat beats a quickened Core save-or-fail spell (hold person, dominates, flesh to stone etc. etc.), I think we can all go to sleep now.
Those spells are easy to deal with. Not sure why you have trouble with any of those spells. They all have counters and a successful save negates them.
There is no save for calcific touch's 1d4 or more dex loss.
There is no save for Prediction of Failure. Maybe Remove Fear might help against the shaken condition, but not sicken. So that might be mitigated. But not everything has a priest handy to Remove Fear.
There is no save against Terrible Remorse. In fact, it is probably wiser if the creature voluntarily fails its save rather than succeeds so it can take actions. How many spells do you know of where it is better to fail your saves?
Since neither of those two spells and no APG/UM feat beats a quickened Core save-or-fail spell (hold person, dominates, flesh to stone etc. etc.), I think we can all go to sleep now.Perhaps, but I have noted that there are 2 AWESOME new awesome save or lose effects, which IMO, are better than core used RAW.
Suffocation
1) Forces 3 saves, each of which is save or lose (reduced to 0 hp)
2) Is not save negates - You are forced to make all 3 saves unless it is dispelled.
3) Even if you make the saves, it's still a pretty strong debuff - makes the target Staggered.
4) It affects 90% + of targets, unlike say Mind-Affecting spells...Icy Prison
1) Attacks a REFLEX save. There hasn't been a save or lose effect that targets reflex before; as a corrollary, a lot of high level monsters have relatively weak reflex saves, relying on HP...
2) Even if you make the save, it's still a pretty strong debuff - makes the target entangled, and taking your caster level in damage every turn until that is cleared up...
3) Note, if makes you HELPLESS if you fail the save. It is not clear if you can take actions, even mental ones, to get yourself out beyond the strength check...
The way I read suffocation. This took a few readings. I gathered that if you succeed on the first save, the spell is negated. If you fail the first save, you get to save each round to negate that round's effects.
Icy Prison is pretty tough. But it is fairly easy to break for high level creatures.
1) Forces 3 saves, each of which is save or lose (reduced to 0 hp)
2) Is not save negates - You are forced to make all 3 saves unless it is dispelled.
3) Even if you make the saves, it's still a pretty strong debuff - makes the target Staggered.
4) It affects 90% + of targets, unlike say Mind-Affecting spells...
Now I read that spell as saying 'If you make the first save, you are staggered for one round and then the spell stops affecting you' based on the wording:
"'The target can attempt to resist this spell's effects with a Fortitude save—if he succeeds, he is merely staggered for 1 round as he gasps for breath."
Furthermore, the suffocation effect triggers on the target's turn and permits a save on their turn, which I believe to be separate from the Fort partial saving throw that the spell itself permits on the caster's turn.
Confused? I'll lay out the spell below as I understand it.
Round 1, caster's turn: Target rolls Fortitude save against the spell, as listed in the Saving Throw section. If they pass, they shake off the spell and are staggered for 1 round. The spell effect on them ends. If they fail, they begin to suffocate on their turn.
Round 1, target's turn: Target must make a Fortitude save or suffocation advances one step - dropping them to 0 hp. If they pass this save, they aren't staggered - the suffocation merely doesn't advance. The spell effect is still on them, and can be dispelled.
Round 2, target's turn: Target must make a Fortitude save or suffocation advances one step (So either to 0 hp or to -1 hp, depending on their previous save)
Round 3, target's turn: Target must make a Fortitude save or suffocation advances one step (either to 0 hp, -1 hp, or death, depending on their previous saves) and the spell then ends.
Am I interpreting this spell wrong?
This is my interpretation as well. It took a few readings to understand it. But I do believe this is how it works.
Overwhelming Presence has become my Number 1 pick for caster BBEGs. It is an absolutely brutal way to take several characters out of the fight at once. Then add in a Maze on the most dangerous character immune to compulsions, and the villain has pretty handily swung the action economy back in his favor.
Overwhelming Presence at least allows a save. Though it is extremely powerful. Very cool conceptually as well. I have this slotted for one my villains. It's going to be nasty.
My main beef is with no save spells. If a spell allows a save, I can build a defense to it even if that defense is simply high saves. As a DM being able to build a viable defense is important. It means the players have to take the time to figure out the weakness of a creature and they can't rely on the same old spell combinations over and over again.
When a spell is thrown in with no save like a Terrible Remorse or a Prediction of Failure or a Calcific Touch, I can't make every creature immune to mind-effecting effects or every creature immune to ability damage (or has an insane dex) or every creature immune to fear or the sickened condition. Straight up immunities to counter no save spells is the type of ridiculous game I'm hoping to avoid.
The only spell from core I have this kind of trouble with is Enervate and Energy Drain. Those are counterable by a death ward spell. Though that can now be obviated by Thanatopic Spell, which I hope my players don't find too soon. I've found it and plan to build a concept around it, but it's going to make life as DM tough if someone builds a harsh negative level necromancer around Thanatopic Spell.
My main wish is that the Paizo designers have a little spell filter sheet and one of the filters is "What is the defense to this spell?". If the defense is "every creature must be immune to fear or mind-effecting effects" or "every creature must be immune to ability damage", then that spell should probably be adjusted.
Since neither of those two spells and no APG/UM feat beats a quickened Core save-or-fail spell (hold person, dominates, flesh to stone etc. etc.), I think we can all go to sleep now.ALMOST right.
Generally core is stronger, and metamagic feat wise UM has the opposite problem. Most metamagic feats in UM are... for... uh... roleplaying use only, people said to me.
Neverteless, Paizo should really have more care for no save effects. If you add rerolls due to witch and persistent, spell perfection, and then see that there is a bunch of "lol no save" effects (already in core), stuff goes out of hand.
It's useless don't repeat the mistake of free metamagic (and for half - metamagic rods are still there) and then add a load of those effects to the game.
@Jestem: I don't get your point. Please, elaborate.
The only metamagic feat from UM that is dangerous is Thanatopic Spell. Now you can stack negative levels on undead and blast right past death ward.
A little irritating.
I have a sorcerer that picked up Thanatopic Spell. I have 6th lvl spell slots to use with Thanatopic Spell. So nothing can resist getting negative levels from my sorcerer now. Nightmare for the DM, joy for the player.
|
|
A little irritating.
I have a sorcerer that picked up Thanatopic Spell. I have 6th lvl spell slots to use with Thanatopic Spell. So nothing can resist getting negative levels from my sorcerer now. Nightmare for the DM, joy for the player.
Spell turning work too.
But you can't give a ring of spell turning to every enemy.
A little irritating.
I have a sorcerer that picked up Thanatopic Spell. I have 6th lvl spell slots to use with Thanatopic Spell. So nothing can resist getting negative levels from my sorcerer now. Nightmare for the DM, joy for the player.
Spell turning work too.
But you can't give a ring of spell turning to every enemy.
Spell turning works against Terrible Remorse and Prediction of Failure.
Not against calcific tough or enervate since they are ranged touch spells. Though I never could tell if they meant by touch range spells spells with the Range: Touch description. It seems counter-intuitive this wouldn't affectd rays and other ranged touch spells.
Compare Command to Murderous Command. Both are a 1st level cleric spell, both last 1 round. Yet, Command simply distracts an enemy for a single round, murderous command distracts an enemy AND potentially kills another enemy.
Not a fan of that.
And don't get me started on create pit (and the more advanced versions of said spell).
Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed a significant power creep in Paizo's newer products, something I had hoped would have avoided.
Compare Command to Murderous Command. Both are a 1st level cleric spell, both last 1 round. Yet, Command simply distracts an enemy for a single round, murderous command distracts an enemy AND potentially kills another enemy.
Not a fan of that.And don't get me started on create pit (and the more advanced versions of said spell).
Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed a significant power creep in Paizo's newer products, something I had hoped would have avoided.
The pit spells can be nasty. Used one on a cleric, took them out of the fight long enough to annihilate the fighter she was supporting.
Surprised my players don't prepare more pit spells. They are really useful for crowd control.
|
Compare Command to Murderous Command. Both are a 1st level cleric spell, both last 1 round. Yet, Command simply distracts an enemy for a single round, murderous command distracts an enemy AND potentially kills another enemy.
Not a fan of that.And don't get me started on create pit (and the more advanced versions of said spell).
Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed a significant power creep in Paizo's newer products, something I had hoped would have avoided.
Compelling a caster to move closer to you is in most cases far more efficient than forcing him to make an attack with a dagger against his closest ally.
|
|
A little irritating.
I have a sorcerer that picked up Thanatopic Spell. I have 6th lvl spell slots to use with Thanatopic Spell. So nothing can resist getting negative levels from my sorcerer now. Nightmare for the DM, joy for the player.
Spell turning work too.
But you can't give a ring of spell turning to every enemy.
Spell turning works against Terrible Remorse and Prediction of Failure.
Not against calcific tough or enervate since they are ranged touch spells. Though I never could tell if they meant by touch range spells spells with the Range: Touch description. It seems counter-intuitive this wouldn't affectd rays and other ranged touch spells.
Spells and spell-like effects targeted on you are turned back upon the original caster. The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected.Spell turning also fails to stop touch range spells.
What matter is if the spell is aimed at a target and if it is a ranged attack. So enervation is affected. And the reply was in relation to your post, where it was clear you were speaking of enervation.
Calcify touch has a range of touch so it is not affected by spell turning.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A little irritating.
I have a sorcerer that picked up Thanatopic Spell. I have 6th lvl spell slots to use with Thanatopic Spell. So nothing can resist getting negative levels from my sorcerer now. Nightmare for the DM, joy for the player.
Spell turning work too.
But you can't give a ring of spell turning to every enemy.
Spell turning works against Terrible Remorse and Prediction of Failure.
Not against calcific tough or enervate since they are ranged touch spells. Though I never could tell if they meant by touch range spells spells with the Range: Touch description. It seems counter-intuitive this wouldn't affectd rays and other ranged touch spells.
Spells and spell-like effects targeted on you are turned back upon the original caster. The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected.Spell turning also fails to stop touch range spells.
What matter is if the spell is aimed at a target and if it is a ranged attack. So enervation is affected. And the reply was in relation to your post, where it was clear you were speaking of enervation.
Calcify touch has a range of touch so it is not affected by spell turning.
I still do not think it works on enervation even with the Range: Touch interpretation.
The enervation spell creates an effect: ray of negative energy.
I believe the spell turning spell only works against spells that list Target: one creature or the like.
Touch spells say Target: Creature Touched.
Ray spells say Effect: Ray of such and such.
Now when I read Spell Turning it says it doesn't work against Range: Touch spells, area spells, and effect spells. Since a ray spell creates an effect, doesn't that mean spell turning fails to protect against it?
I've been playing it this way for a while. Is there another official interpretation? I wouldn't mind having spell turning work against rays, but it seems by RAW that it doesn't.
Compelling a caster to move closer to you is in most cases far more efficient than forcing him to make an attack with a dagger against his closest ally.Compare Command to Murderous Command. Both are a 1st level cleric spell, both last 1 round. Yet, Command simply distracts an enemy for a single round, murderous command distracts an enemy AND potentially kills another enemy.
Not a fan of that.And don't get me started on create pit (and the more advanced versions of said spell).
Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed a significant power creep in Paizo's newer products, something I had hoped would have avoided.
Perhaps true, but that's an unlikely application of the spell. Compelling a caster to approach may be fairly useful, but the spell is a will negate. Most targets would/should be fighter types. Casters have high will, and most would laugh at a 1st level spell that targets will.
On the other hand, a raging barbarian or fighter who fails the save could well slaughter a nearby ally in one hit.
Nice doubt ....
Re-reading the ray description and spell turning your interpretation is possible.
At that point we can question why there is a specification about touch range spell not working, but your doubt has some basis.
LOL
I will bother JJ asking how they do it in house at Paizo later today.
If the Paizo designers decided that for my group, that would great. If you find something out, please let me know.
It seems intended that spell turning should work against rays. But it's another one of those spells that has funny text. I figure the effect ruling was mostly for spells like wall of fire or spells that create an effect like crushing hand or the like. But since ray spells create an effect as well, they were lumped into this text. A simple "This spell works against rays" would do the trick.
Now if the designers could only clearly delineate freedom of movement. That little sentence "move and act normally" creates a lot of conflict.
My players think it allows them to move over difficult terrain without penalty including charging and the like. It doesn't specify if you still need a form of locomtion in water. Some even question if it helps them move and act normally while dazed or stunned.
I play it that it works mostly against effects that are cast at you that impede movement including non-magical webs. But I don't allow it work against naturally occurring difficult terrain. I generally make my players make swim checks in the water without the movement penalty as a way of pushing through the water. I don't like the idea of them running on water. It looks stupid in my head. It doesn't say that freedom of movement provides the ability to walk on water, so I tend not to give it.
If they would write freedom of movement into a clearer spell or at least write a really specific eratta, I would be really happy.
If Sean K. Reynolds during this flurry of FAQ movement would sit down and write us a big old eratta freedom of movement spelling out specifically what that "move and act normally" text in the spell applies to, I would be eternally grateful. Though he is one my favorite game designers already for his work on the Forgotten Realms, so I already think pretty highly of the guy. But my opinion can go a little higher if he is the first game designer to clarify freedom of movement beyond a doubt for us DMs.
Spark is my favourite new cantrip..
If you include Alchemy- Alchemical Allocation is sweeet
Cold Ice Strike is awesome. Hello built in Quicken spell! And even on the cleric list too.
Create Demiplane has amazing RP potential..
Polar Midnight is pretty good, although maybe not great for a ninth level spell.. but still, dmg with no save is always fun.
Frigid Touch is pretty awesome, make something staggered with no save...
There are a lot of cool little spells too like Acute Sense, Burrow, Bungle, Countless Eyes, Strangling Hair, Echolocation...
Epidemic can wreak some serious havoc in populated areas
Fun stuff...
Hard to say what is best, but lots of potential
|
|
Nice doubt ....
Re-reading the ray description and spell turning your interpretation is possible.
At that point we can question why there is a specification about touch range spell not working, but your doubt has some basis.
LOL
I will bother JJ asking how they do it in house at Paizo later today.If the Paizo designers decided that for my group, that would great. If you find something out, please let me know.
Ray spells get reflected.
...
So how it work in your games at Paizo? A ray is subject to spell turning or not?
:D
Feel good to have a confirmation.
|
|
Some spells are stupidly powerful, I agree I am not a fan of the no save spells, especially ones which are pretty close to encounter winners.
Often in the case of real nasty spells we have a simple test on whether they will be used - they are all allowed to be used, but the DM goes by the rule of 'if it works for you it works for me. YOu can have the spell of 'I win' but be aware that I will use it too'.
Ultimately we play for fun, so spells we think will ruin encounters tend to be avoided, however it is not so simple in set games like PFS
Nice doubt ....
Re-reading the ray description and spell turning your interpretation is possible.
At that point we can question why there is a specification about touch range spell not working, but your doubt has some basis.
LOL
I will bother JJ asking how they do it in house at Paizo later today.If the Paizo designers decided that for my group, that would great. If you find something out, please let me know.
Ray spells get reflected.
...
So how it work in your games at Paizo? A ray is subject to spell turning or not?
:D
Feel good to have a confirmation.
Nice. Thanks for the word from a developer, Diego.
If thats how Jacobs runs it, I'll do the same. It makes sense. Makes me a little bit happier about enervation and energy drain. Spell Turning always makes life a little risky since many players don't take greater arcane sight to see what buffs are up on a creature and at high level many casters use mind blank to counter greater arcane sight. That means we now have a risk factor in using dangerous ray spells.
Now if you could get Jacobs to tell us how freedom of movement works in Paizo games, I'd be set. Does it work for difficult terrain? Does it work for natural terrain impediments like briars, overgrowth, slippery snow, and the like? Does he require a means of locomotion under water?