19 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
There have been questions as to how to run Wail of the Banshee. Apparently, the questions were not clear enough in the previous thread, so I have made a new thread to enter into the FAQ candidate database so that we might have some answers.
The first question has to do with targets. The spell itself has a listing as "targets", implying that the caster chooses targets within a 40 foot spread, and those closest to the point of origin are affected first. However, there is also a valid argument that the spread itself means there is no choice on who gets affected when the spell resolves, even though the spell does not list an actual area in its stats.
The rules contradict themselves here. Which is it? Is Wail of the Banshee an area spell where you can't select targets, or a targeted spell with a limited area?
My argument: As a Level 9 spell, it should be in line with other spells of its level. Mass Heal and Mass Harm both allow you to select targets, are Level 9, and can do similar damage until caster level goes above 25. The catch is that Mass Heal and Mass Harm allow will saves for half damage while Wail of the Banshee allows Fortitude save to negate damage altogether. If you can't select your targets, it is no longer a spell on par with other Level 9 spells, so I would argue that the caster should be allowed to select targets.
Please bring clarity to this point.
The second question is about the amount of damage it does. Another poster stated that James Jacobs once said Wail of the Banshee does 10 damage/level total, though the thread cannot be found. The spell itself is not completely clear.
Is the damage 10/level total, or 10/level to each creature affected?
My argument: As a Level 9 spell, Wail of the Banshee should be a major threat any time it is cast. If the damage were only 10/level total, with a Fortitude save to negate completely, that would kill its damage output to be in line with a Level 3 spell like Fireball, as even Destruction and Finger of Death would do more on average since Fortitude is almost always going to be a "good save" against whatever you are casting it at. As such, it obviously should be 10/level to every affected creature.
Please bring clarity to this point as well.
The book simply doesn't answer these points because of contradictory wording in the rules. Everyone, please select this as an FAQ candidate so that we might get some much-needed answers to these questions.
It will attempt to effect the nearest living creature to the point of origin. If the point of origin is the same distance to more than one creature the caster may choose which creature is effected first (that's how I handle such things). The spell will then indiscriminately spread outward effecting the next nearest living creature(s) until no more living creatures remain within the 40 radius area or the total of 1 creature per caster level is met. Any equidistant foes after the first I roll randomly if it matters, essentially the caster can assure himself of his first target thereafter it's random but that is totally how I do it no RAW involved. So yes it will potentially effect living allies, living non-combatant innocents and living foes alike. It's no more innately selective than a fireball or sunburst beyond its initial placement.
The damage is 10 hp/level per creature. At least that was the intent in 3.5 as there was no limit based on hp damage, you could kill up to your level in creatures. Do I think putting some sort of cap other than just 1 creature/level might be reasonable, yes. Right off the top of my head not so sure what I would do there. I'm also not averse to leaving it as, it's a 9th level spell with some significant limits already built into it with the death and sonic descriptors.
some other high level spells for comparison:
- Implosion: can potentially deal half the damage (1 corporeal creature/2 levels) but does it over time and requires concentrating on it or the spell ends. And concentrating generally prevents any further spellcasting.
- Mass Heal: Potentially as deadly vs Undead, but only vs Undead.
- Power Word Kill: Hmmm WotB is definitely more powerful since this will only kill 1 living creature and further that creature can have no more than 100 hp. This spell deserves its own thread. Some of the blame goes towards the conversion (or relative lack thereof) from 2E onward. It used to be fairly potent because its casting time was 1 (not 1 standard action) when most 9th level spells had a CT of 9 and most characters would be lucky to see their hp total go over 100 before they got retired. PW-Kill was far far far more scary then.
- Incendiary Cloud: 8th level spell which does 6d6 fire damage to everything in its area. Yes its fire damage but that's also 21 hp per round for at least 15 rounds for the same wizard who might cast WotB no concentrating required.
- Weird: Is well weird, it has no limits at all on how many you can effect beyond how many creatures you can cram into the area so none of them are more than 30ft apart. Again they have to be living creatures. They also have a save to totally avoid any effect from the spell at all. Like many of the high level spells it needs some cleaning up. It should ideally and specifically say "any number of living creatures no two of which can be more than 30 ft apart". That does make its effective radius a good bit smaller than WotB.
- Horrid Wilting: Also 8th level, in many ways this spell is the closest in terms of raw damage potential to WotB. The effective radius is slightly smaller, they must be similarly living creatures but there is no limit on how many you could potentially effect beyond, much like Weird, how many you could cram into the area (essentially a 30ft radius not 40ft) and it requires a Fortitude save. The range is drastically greater than WotB.
Note that there is NO Mass Harm within PF you have to go outside the system to find it if you can even find it then, AFAIK.
This makes it factually stronger than Wail of the Banshee in almost every conceivable way in terms of DPR because Wail of the Banshee can murder your friends.
I stand by my arguments. If Wail of the Banshee hits everything in its radius, it shouldn't be a Level 9 spell. It simply doesn't stand up to anything else in the Level 9 category (or even many things at Level 8). Well, except Implosion, which is a Cleric spell and thus less powerful at damage. To go over your list. IF Wail of the Banshee is so limited by "area":
Implosion: Underpowered comparatively, but a Cleric spell.
Mass Heal: Strictly better.
Mass Harm: Strictly better.
Power Word Kill: Hit point limit, but no saving throw and instant death; strictly better.
Incendiary Cloud: Energy damage and can be dispersed, strictly worse.
Weird: Mass instant death, even though it has to go through two saves, but it hits targets; strictly better.
Horrid Wilting: Massive target area, select your targets, lots of damage; strictly better.
If Wail of the Banshee is limited by being an area spell, it's worthless for any caster to take. No one would ever cast it for any reason. It would be one of the dumbest spells to memorize because anything else would be strictly better. Dominate Monster, Energy Drain, Gate, Heroic Invocation, Mass Hold Monster, Overwhelming Presence, Power Word Kill, Prismatic Sphere, Ride the Lightning, Mass Suffocation, Time Stop, Weird, Wish: every one of them is strictly better. Wail of the Banshee couldn't compete, period. It would be a spell only undead or sonic-immune parties could cast.
That said, and if that was TL;DR, I'm not here to debate the rules with other players or GMs. I'm here to get an answer from TPTB. So if you don't mind, if you could just mark for FAQ, I'd appreciate it. No one but the developers know the RAW or RAI in this case because of the contradictory language, confusing text, and numerous other inconsistencies. Again, please mark for an FAQ.
Whoa! Sorry my intent was not to argue with you but merely to bring up some of the spells which could be reasonably compared to Wail (for better or worse).
I wasn't clear about Mass Harm. You have to go outside Paizo published materials to find Mass Harm. I don't think you'll get Paizo making rulings or providing clarity on material they didn't publish no matter how many times anyone hits the FAQ button. As for Horrid Wilting I believe I am correct it has an effective radius of 30 ft (as no two creatures may be more than 60ft apart). If it was a 60 ft radius sphere with creatures on opposite sides they would be 120ft apart would they not?
WotB seems pretty clear cut to me. The spell inflicts 10 points of damage per caster level, starting with the creature nearest the caster. If the spell does enough damage to kill the first creature, it moves on to the next nearest creature, inflicting whatever remaining damage it can.
Let's say there are two enemies, one 5' away (A), the other 10' away(B), and an ally 15' away(C). Let's assume the caster to be level 10, thus doing a total of 100 damage, starting with the creature nearest the caster. Creature A, assuming no resistances, has 50 hp. He goes down. Next creature B, who only has 30 hp gets targeted because he's the next nearest thing. He goes down, leaving 20 dmg for ally C, the next closest creature.
Wail of the Banshee as per PRD:
School necromancy [death, sonic]; Level sorcerer/wizard 9
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one living creature/level within a 40-ft.-radius spread
When you cast this spell, you emit a terrible, soul-chilling scream that possibly kills creatures that hear it (except for yourself). The spell affects up to one creature per caster level, inflicting 10 points of damage per caster level. Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first.
I dont see what you mean about the spell listing "targets", and the spell description has a clearly defined radius of 40'. What exactly are you confused about?
Again, not looking for a debate since the text is so erratic, unclear, and contradictory.
Anyway, there are several problems with your theory.
1. If it was a total of 10/level, it would have the power output of a Level 3 spell due to it being a save of Fortitude negates since Fortitude will be a good save 90% of the time. There would be no reason to ever memorize the spell because there would not be a single spell of Levels 3-8 that would not be a better fit for the slot.
2. It does not have a clearly defined radius of anything. Look at Wail of the Banshee versus Fireball. Wail of the Banshee has a "Target" listing while Fireball has an "Area". If you read the explanation of "Target" it states outright that "you must specifically choose the target". It is very specifically not an area.
3. What is the point of affecting one creature per level when you're almost certainly going to use up all your damage on one or two targets tops?
As such, RAW, it makes no sense and is contradictory because the text sounds as if it should be an area spell, but the stat block says it is a targeted spell with an area restriction only. RAI, the damage should be 10/level per target, though the intentions of every other part of the spell are vague at best and impossible to figure out at worst.
Personally, I argue that it should affect targets you choose within a 40 foot spread, doing 10/level to all targets. That seems most in line with an actual Level 9 spell. I can see an argument, however, for "Target" being a typo and it actually being an "Area" spell, meaning it hits everything in its spread; I would still say it's supposed to be 10/level per target.
It was likely marked answered because the answer to the question is in the RAW as is, the description in the spell is sufficient to tell you how it works. Let's take a look, the Paizo Devs get it right 49 times of 50, so we'll keep it simple and look at what they put...
The target point is defined in the RAW, the area it covers from that point is defined in the RAW, the damage is defined in the RAW [with no notes on dividing among targets, we'll get to that later], as it tells you "closest targets are affected first" you can't decide who your limited number of targets are it has to go closest to farthest, as it tells you "(except for yourself)" not "(except for you and your allies)" it explains you can't exclude friendlies either, with no other special notation to say otherwise a successful save from a creature just passes the spell along to the next closest target it does not end the spell completely [but would count against your total number of targets], and [per the edit reading the point in the old thread] JJ, while the overlord of some INCREDIBLE fluff, is not a Dev so the spell should do full damage to all targets as you wanted [no different than say Fireball] unless someone points you at an official FAQ/errata that says otherwise.
... so I can't tell what the RAI is, but the RAW is spelled out rather well. I don't see "erratic, unclear, and contradictory" or "obviously impossible", I see "spelled out right there".
That leaves your issue with it being one of you don't like it and think it's underpowered, or you misunderstand it. In the former case that could very well be true but it's not a rules question it's an issue for general discussion, essentially requesting an errata. In the latter case you're in for a long wait because telling everyone they just can't explain it to you and it must be Paizo is a sure way to make sure Paizo doesn't answer on general principal. If they let that work EVERY thread here would start with "Only for Paizo Devs, FAQ needed!!!", and it would be utter chaos I tell you. Utter chaos.
EDIT: Found the old discussion. Someone made a good point there, having read it the RAW still seems to cover everything.
Kayerloth is correct, the max radius of HW is 30ft, the 60ft in the description are effectively a diameter.
edit: and HW does not let you select targets...
PRD wrote:
Targets living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart
It is not a radius. It end having the same AoE of a radius spell in open ground, but it work differently. This is especially important if you have vertical separation between the targets (i.e. if someone is flying)
RAW, the target line allow you to choose the targets:
PRD wrote:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
almost certainly is not RAI.
- * -
PRD wrote:
Wail of the Banshee
School necromancy [death, sonic]; Level sorcerer/wizard 9
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one living creature/level within a 40-ft.-radius spread
When you cast this spell, you emit a terrible, soul-chilling scream that possibly kills creatures that hear it (except for yourself). The spell affects up to one creature per caster level, inflicting 10 points of damage per caster level. Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first.
The spell was badly mangled during the conversion to Pathfinder.
Step by step:
"Target one living creature/level within a 40-ft.-radius spread"
As above, this allow you to choose your targets. Se above citation regarding HW.
RAI I think it is not meant to be a targeted spell where you choose who is affected, but RAW it is.
"The spell affects up to one creature per caster level, inflicting 10 points of damage per caster level. Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first."
Limit on the number of creature affected, OK, hp damage inflicted, unclear.
The problem is the phrase "Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first." That normally is used for spells that divide the effect between multiple creatures.
RAI it is almost certainly 10 hp/level for each creature, but the raw isn't so clear. Even in this thread we see people arguing both interpretations.
Again, not looking for a debate since the text is so erratic, unclear, and contradictory.
Not really erratic, unclear, or contradictory. Okay maybe SLIGHTLY unclear, but I'll get to that.
DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:
Anyway, there are several problems with your theory.
1. If it was a total of 10/level, it would have the power output of a Level 3 spell due to it being a save of Fortitude negates since Fortitude will be a good save 90% of the time. There would be no reason to ever memorize the spell because there would not be a single spell of Levels 3-8 that would not be a better fit for the slot.
Arguing that a spell is sub-optimal doesn't make it "erratic, unclear, or contradictory", it just makes it sub-optimal. Nobody is arguing that point but you.
DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:
2. It does not have a clearly defined radius of anything. Look at Wail of the Banshee versus Fireball. Wail of the Banshee has a "Target" listing while Fireball has an "Area". If you read the explanation of "Target" it states outright that "you must specifically choose the target". It is very specifically not an area.
Here's the ONLY part that may need clarification.
Normally, this is correct, but as we've all seen on these boards one tome or another, specific trumps general. This spell says it's a Targeted spell, but also specifies which targets are affected and in which order. If the stat block listed it as an Area spell, it could be argued that you get to choose the area affected instead of emanating from the caster. Either way, WotB has a specific line, telling you how to select targets, in which order, and how far away they can be. Also, the area the spell can affect is "40-ft.-radius spread" (as copy/pasted from the PFSRD).
DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:
3. What is the point of affecting one creature per level when you're almost certainly going to use up all your damage on one or two targets tops?
Maybe so you don't roast friendlies? Since the spell is rather predictable in damage and effect, it becomes easier to make tactical decisions about when and how to use the spell.
DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:
As such, RAW, it makes no sense and is contradictory because the text sounds as if it should be an area spell, but the stat block says it is a targeted spell with an area restriction only. RAI, the damage should be 10/level per target, though the intentions of every other part of the spell are vague at best and impossible to figure out at worst.
Personally, I argue that it should affect targets you choose within a 40 foot spread, doing 10/level to all targets. That seems most in line with an actual Level 9 spell. I can see an argument, however, for "Target" being a typo and it actually being an "Area" spell, meaning it hits everything in its spread; I would still say it's supposed to be 10/level per target.
And here you're back to arguing that the spell is sub-optimal, which isn't a rules question at all, and claiming RAI as though it's a fact. Did you stop to consider that this spell has Verbal components only, meaning Spell Failure chance from armor isn't taken into account. You can cast the spell while grappled, provided a concentration check. Despite your arguing the spell is sub-optimal (and it probably is), it does have a few niche uses that make it really shine when used properly.
Either way, this isn't a proper candidate for FAQ. The rules are very clear (keeping in mind specific trumps general) and the community has explained those rules to you a few times now. If you want to persist that it's "erratic, unclear, or contradictory" or has "numerous inconsistencies", I can't stop you. But I'll not be marking this as a FAQ candidate.
Okay, on the first question, I'm torn, I could see it either way. As I see it:
Arguments against choosing:
- The description says it affects everyone but you; if you can choose targets and can choose how many targets ("up to") there'd be no point in that part of the description since it only affects whoever you want to.
- The description says it affects those closest to the point of origin first. While it doesn't necessarily state if that means those are automatic targets, it's not common that it would matter which order they're affected when it's all during the same instantaneous spell.
Arguments in favor of choosing targets:
- It is a (target) spell, not an (area) spell. Target spells clearly state the targets are creatures or objects, not points of origin, and that the caster chooses targets.
- Otherwise it'd be a very weak spell. While this of course doesn't affect RAW, it may hint towards RAI.
- Saying that the creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first might simply mean that the creatures the spell affects (that is, the targets of the spell) are affected first, not that it affect all creatures regardless of targets or force you to target someone. While it's not common that the timing of this matters, it does happen, especially if the targets have contingency, abilities that triggers upon death or anything similar.
Just to add to the problems of the spell description:
PRD wrote:
A spread spell extends out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes.
PRD wrote:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. [b]You must be able to see or touch the target,[/b[ and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
PRD wrote:
Target one living creature/level within a 40-ft.-radius spread
So we have a spell that has a sperat(i.e. that can turn corners and hit creature hidden from yo) bat require you to target them )i.e. you need to see the creatures you wan to affect).
Sorry, Cruel Kindness, but to see it as clear you need to look at it sideway and squint (or start with the 3.5 version and disregard half of the changes).
Just to add to the problems of the spell description:
PRD wrote:
A spread spell extends out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes.
PRD wrote:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
PRD wrote:
Target one living creature/level within a 40-ft.-radius spread
So we have a spell that has a sperat(i.e. that can turn corners and hit creature hidden from yo) bat require you to target them )i.e. you need to see the creatures you wan to affect).
Sorry, Cruel Kindness, but to see it as clear you need to look at it sideway and squint (or start with the 3.5 version and disregard half of the changes).
Thank you for posting the general rules for casting a spell. These rules apply, except where they don't. Pazio probably listed the spell as being a "Target" instead of an "Area" to avoid confusion about where the spell originates since the spell lists a range of Close. Yes, they needed to list the range as Close because if it was Self (as in emanated from yourself) people would interpret it to mean it only affects yourself.
Yes, the spell can turn corners as per a Spread spell. No, you don't need to see the targets and as such you can't choose targets. The spell chooses which targets it affects, in order of closest to furthest.
If anything, the points you made actually reaffirm my standpoint. If you could CHOOSE the targets, the spell wouldn't be a Spread, it would be a Burst.
Yes but for RAI not RAW how much sense does it make for a spell based on sound (i.e. Sonic) to act like a spread and not go around a corner(s)? Point is the subject has now generated two threads fairly rapidly with folks debating what it means in terms of RAW. Hence the FAQ button.
Cruel Kindness, exceptions to general rules are generally marked as such or are in other way extremely obvious examples. For example, while the general rule of Summon Monster is that it lasts 1 round/level, the summoner SLA explicitly states that it lasts 1 minute/level. That is a case of specific overriding general, because the general rules are completely impossible to combine with the specific and explicit description of the ability.
In this case, where the general rules are compatible with the specific description of the spell - although the compability is a bit weird - there's a really strong case of this NOT being a case of general vs specific.
We can speculate in why paizo would list something as target rather than area (and note that the same thing is done with Confusion) but it has limited only value.
There are more than one interpretation here that does not directly conflict with the raw depending on how you interpret things such as specific vs general and how heavily to consider descriptive non-key word text.
Kayerloth, are you suggesting you can't hear someone screaming less than 20' away if they're around a corner? RAI and RAW seem to match there, so I don't understand what you mean. Maybe the OP didn't like what they were seeing in this thread so they made another and abandoned this one...
Ilja, the specific rules for WotB definitely don't mesh with the general or the OP wouldn't be confused in the first place. Thus, specific trumps general is the answer.
Yes but for RAI not RAW how much sense does it make for a spell based on sound (i.e. Sonic) to act like a spread and not go around a corner(s)? Point is the subject has now generated two threads fairly rapidly with folks debating what it means in terms of RAW. Hence the FAQ button.
It did not generate 2 threads rapidly.
A single poster, the OP of this thread, necro'd an older thread not liking the answer Paizo gave (so note: Paizo has marked this answered already, this is in the RAW, see my post above) then almost immediately made a whole new post on the same topic asking the same questions.
Thank you for posting the general rules for casting a spell. These rules apply, except where they don't. Pazio probably listed the spell as being a "Target" instead of an "Area" to avoid confusion about where the spell originates since the spell lists a range of Close. Yes, they needed to list the range as Close because if it was Self (as in emanated from yourself) people would interpret it to mean it only affects yourself.
Yes, the spell can turn corners as per a Spread spell. No, you don't need to see the targets and as such you can't choose targets. The spell chooses which targets it affects, in order of closest to furthest.
If anything, the points you made actually reaffirm my standpoint. If you could CHOOSE the targets, the spell wouldn't be a Spread, it would be a Burst.
Can you point to the piece of the spell where it say that there is something in it override the general rules?
When something override the general rules it spelled explicitly. Nowhere in the spell it say that you can target people that you can't see, so there isn't anything overriding the general rules.
You suppose that it implicitly override them saying that the spell affect the nearest target first, but that is a interpretation without basis in the text.
Kayerloth, are you suggesting you can't hear someone screaming less than 20' away if they're around a corner? RAI and RAW seem to match there, so I don't understand what you mean. Maybe the OP didn't like what they were seeing in this thread so they made another and abandoned this one...
Before going for ad ominem attacks, maybe you should look the date of a thread [Spr 5, 2012, 02:31 PM] and why the question was repeated:
DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:
Apr 8, 2013, 04:43 AM
The first post says this was answered in the FAQ, but I just checked the FAQ and there's nothing there regarding this.
Cruel Kindness wrote:
Ilja, the specific rules for WotB definitely don't mesh with the general or the OP wouldn't be confused in the first place. Thus, specific trumps general is the answer.
But there is not a specific rule that trumps a general one. The phrase "Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first." don't say anything about changing how a targeted spell work. it is simply a copy/paste of the 3.5 version of the spell, where the spell had an area of effect and not a target line
ShoulderPatch wrote:
Kayerloth wrote:
Yes but for RAI not RAW how much sense does it make for a spell based on sound (i.e. Sonic) to act like a spread and not go around a corner(s)? Point is the subject has now generated two threads fairly rapidly with folks debating what it means in terms of RAW. Hence the FAQ button.
It did not generate 2 threads rapidly.
A single poster, the OP of this thread, necro'd an older thread not liking the answer Paizo gave (so note: Paizo has marked this answered already, this is in the RAW, see my post above) then almost immediately made a whole new post on the same topic asking the same questions.
Again an ad ominem attack, wonderful.
The thread is marked "answered in the FAQ", but that was the old way of removing a thread from the FAQ queue if the was no reply forthcoming. The Dev, SKR in particular, have repeatedly suggested to repeat the questions in a clearer form in a new thread it a FAQ request had that reply and there was nothing in the about the question in the published FAQs.
OP: I don't believe this thread isn't going to accomplish what you want to accomplish either.
First, you're trying to do too many things with this thread. If you wanted clarification on how targeting the spell works, and had only asked about the targeting of the spell I think you would have a decent chance that, with enough FAQ clicks, you could get an answer. But you didn't just ask that, you posted a wall of text.
Second, you're complaining about the power level. Paizo doesn't normally errata things to make them stronger, and in the rare circumstances where they do, they don't do it for Tier 1 classes. But even if you had a chance of convincing them that this spell needed the boost, comparing it to Mass Harm, a spell which they specifically didn't publish (likely because they believed it would be too strong) isn't going to do it.
Third, they don't care what your argument is. They're not trying to get into an argument with you. If you don't understand something (damage, targeting, etc.), then ask for clarity. Don't try and argue your point of how you think they should change it to make it work.
Fourth, posting arguments, then responding to counter arguments with "I'm not posting this here for debate" is kind of bad form.
Edit: And fifth, calling the developers liars certainly isn't going to help your point. They mark threads as answered in the FAQ when the question isn't clear enough for them. They have told us this. That isn't a lie, a flaw in their system, perhaps, but not a lie.
Wrong, ShoulderPatch and Cruel Kindness. Wow, it's obvious neither of you read the entirety of both posts.
The previous thread was one I was an active part of. Then, mysteriously, they marked it as "answered in the FAQ", which was an outright lie. I checked said FAQ, and there was no mention. No developer ever said a word, nor did they explain it in the FAQ. I tried bumping the thread to get it attention about ten times, then someone noted that developers ignore all threads marked as answered and said the questions were probably not clear enough. That person suggested I make a new thread, so I did, with clear questions.
Next, Horrid Wilting allows you to choose targets by RAW and RAI, you're probably the only person to debate otherwise. That's ludicrous. It's obviously (and stated as) a targeted spell.
There is also nothing in the spell description of Wail of the Banshee that changes the general spell rules.
"When you cast this spell, you emit a terrible, soul-chilling scream that possibly kills creatures that hear it (except for yourself). The spell affects up to one creature per caster level, inflicting 10 points of damage per caster level. Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first."
First, you emit a soul-chilling scream. Second, it spreads 40 feet, even going around corners. The general rules say you have to choose targets within said radius, and the spread doesn't rule that out since you might have X-Ray Vision or True Seeing. The damage is most certainly a rules question and not just something "I don't like". If it only does 10/level total, that doesn't make it sub-optimal, it makes the spell unusable. Even Fireball could reliably do more damage, and Cone of Cold or Horrid Wilting will do more damage nearly every single time. A Level 9 spell should be a Level 9 spell, so a note from the developers stating it really is 10/level on each creature would be nice. Creatures closest to the point of origin being hit first isn't mutually exclusive from having to choose targets.
Still, I can see the argument that it's a straight up spread and that the "Target" line is a typo all over. I'm not willing to entertain the idea that it's 10/level total.
If I just didn't like it, I could just let me Rule 0 stand. I'm a GM, not a player, though Wail of the Banshee is something one of the characters has. Heck, I already have a Rule 0 splitting the difference by making it a spread that does 10/level to all creatures in the area. It's still supremely weak.
I'm looking for a ruling on this so I know what's right.
ShadowcatX wrote:
OP: I don't believe this thread isn't going to accomplish what you want to accomplish either.
First, you're trying to do too many things with this thread. If you wanted clarification on how targeting the spell works, and had only asked about the targeting of the spell I think you would have a decent chance that, with enough FAQ clicks, you could get an answer. But you didn't just ask that, you posted a wall of text.
Edit: And fifth, calling the developers liars certainly isn't going to help your point. They mark threads as answered in the FAQ when the question isn't clear enough for them. They have told us this. That isn't a lie, a flaw in their system, perhaps, but not a lie.
I asked two questions, with the power level argument being why I saw it a certain way. That doesn't change the fact that I only asked two questions, for clarity on the targets/area and the damage.
As for the lies, well, I call a spade a spade. I didn't particularly see the other thread as unclear on the questions, and the developers could have easily taken 2 seconds and just said "Please clarify."
Kayerloth, are you suggesting you can't hear someone screaming less than 20' away if they're around a corner? RAI and RAW seem to match there, so I don't understand what you mean. Maybe the OP didn't like what they were seeing in this thread so they made another and abandoned this one...
Ilja, the specific rules for WotB definitely don't mesh with the general or the OP wouldn't be confused in the first place. Thus, specific trumps general is the answer.
Because the rules for Spread and Burst effects are different. A burst effect does not, as far as I know, go around a corner only a spread will do that. Hence yes, by RAW, if the effect was a Burst then you would not 'hear' anything around the corner at least with respect to being effected by the spell. And obviously this makes no sense ... the Wail should be heard and effect targets around a corner. This is turn leads to the dilemma of not being able to visualize a target of the spell (and the general need for more clarity is felt).
Heck we had a running joke among our Epic level characters
joke:
DM: Rogue, make a DC 60 Listen check
Rogue: Okay, made it.
DM: Okay you need to make a Fort save, you just heard that Banshee, several miles off, Wail :p
Okay you probably had to be there, but we thought some of the results of the epic skills were a tad over the top even for Epic play and this how we poked fun at some of them
I also tend to agree with much (but not all) of what ShadowcatX has said. Keep it concise, on point and try to avoid inflammatory text, the whole you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar truism. Maybe start another thread in the homerules section about how to alter WotB if you feel you need more input on how to make the spell stronger in a manner both you and your group would be comfortable with.
I'm done here. Ad hominim attacks everywhere. People not understanding what ad hominem really means. Interpretations of RAW that are just... mind boggling. The way I read the spell, everything is crystal clear. Apparently I apply too much logic (or not enough) to even understand where the confusion stems from.
As for the lies, well, I call a spade a spade. I didn't particularly see the other thread as unclear on the questions, and the developers could have easily taken 2 seconds and just said "Please clarify."
It is not a lie. Until the system was recently changed, it was the only way to remove a question from the FAQ queue. It wasn't a very good system and it was changed, but it was what was available at the time.
WotB seems pretty clear cut to me. The spell inflicts 10 points of damage per caster level, starting with the creature nearest the caster. If the spell does enough damage to kill the first creature, it moves on to the next nearest creature, inflicting whatever remaining damage it can.
Let's say there are two enemies, one 5' away (A), the other 10' away(B), and an ally 15' away(C). Let's assume the caster to be level 10, thus doing a total of 100 damage, starting with the creature nearest the caster. Creature A, assuming no resistances, has 50 hp. He goes down. Next creature B, who only has 30 hp gets targeted because he's the next nearest thing. He goes down, leaving 20 dmg for ally C, the next closest creature.
** spoiler omitted **
I dont see what you mean about the spell listing "targets", and the spell description has a clearly defined radius of 40'. What exactly are you confused about?
When you're working out your damage distribution, which I think is totally wrong, are you using current hit points above 0, hit points down to -10 or hit points down to -con? I really don't think there is anything unclear about the spell dealing the full 10/level to all targets.
The only reason the target bit gets mentioned is because you need to point out who gets hit working from Centre out to radius just in case there are more targets than you have levels within the whole area of the spell. It is clear that you can't avoid allies.
Yet, by the same rules, you can't hit an invisible creature without a means to see invisible creatures. That seems a bit more ludicrous.
Is there a place to suggest official errata on spells that obviously make no freaking sense whatsoever? Logic suggests that this is the most poorly worded spell in core.
As for the lies, well, I call a spade a spade. I didn't particularly see the other thread as unclear on the questions, and the developers could have easily taken 2 seconds and just said "Please clarify."
I'm with you on the whole call a spade a spade thing and I've called the developers out on lying before. (The whole monk flurry / 2 weapon fighting "That's how it always worked" debacle for example.) That said, when you are trying to get a question answered you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. So ask yourself, what is it you want out of this thread.
And the whole "please clarify" issue has been dealt with in a prior post (Thank you Diego Rossi) so no reason for me to go into that.
Okay, seriously. This is my last post in this thread... I don't even know why I'm letting this bother me. *Sigh*
Kayerloth wrote:
Because the rules for Spread and Burst effects are different. A burst effect does not, as far as I know, go around a corner only a spread will do that. Hence yes, by RAW, if the effect was a Burst then you would not 'hear' anything around the corner at least with respect to being effected by the spell. And obviously this makes no sense ... the Wail should be heard and effect targets around a corner. This is turn leads to the dilemma of not being able to visualize a target of the spell (and the general need for more clarity is felt).
Right. Wail of the Banshee IS a Spread effect so you DO hear it around corners. Your post leads me to believe you're confused as to how the spell works.
stuart haffenden wrote:
When you're working out your damage distribution, which I think is totally wrong, are you using current hit points above 0, hit points down to -10 or hit points down to -con? I really don't think there is anything unclear about the spell dealing the full 10/level to all targets.
The only reason the target bit gets mentioned is because you need to point out who gets hit working from Centre out to radius just in case there are more targets than you have levels within the whole area of the spell. It is clear that you can't avoid allies.
The spell states it kills creatures, so apply damage until the Death condition is met. The "target bit" you're referring to is because the spell is a Spread and you don't even need to be aware of their presence to affect them as I will explain below. Using Fireball as an example, the effect block states "points of fire damage to every creature within the area." WotB has no such line, thus it has a fixed damage that it applies, in order of effect, much like the Sleep spell explaining which creatures are affected until the maximum HD is met.
DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:
Yet, by the same rules, you can't hit an invisible creature without a means to see invisible creatures. That seems a bit more ludicrous.
Is there a place to suggest official errata on spells that obviously make no freaking sense whatsoever? Logic suggests that this is the most poorly worded spell in core.
This is false. Even in melee rules, you can hit an Invisible creature without a means to see invisible creatures, as per attacking a creature with Total Concealment.
Total Concealment per the PFSRD:
Total Concealment
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
Emphasis mine. And that's just attacking with melee, not using a magic spell with a Spread Area of 40'. Spread spells have effect around blind corners, as specifically stated in the core rules. WotB, as a Spread effect, can effect Invisible creatures as well as creatures that can't otherwise be Targeted. Hence the final line in it's Effect text explaining which creatures it Targets, and in which order (for the purposes of damage distribution as I explained above). I cannot explain this any simpler.
In regards to DreamGoddessLindsey's previous post, I don't think anyone was "flaming" you, though even making jokes (looking at you, ShoulderPatch) is a bit off-color in the Rules Questions sub forum. Having said that, DGL took it way too far. I'll leave this thread to it's fate, but just wanted to try one last time to try and clarify RAW in this thread for anyone who might find it later.
@Cruel Kindness
No I'm in agreement with you with respect to Spread and Burst. I think we merely managed to confuse each other when you wrote this in the last line of a previous post:
"If anything, the points you made actually reaffirm my standpoint. If you could CHOOSE the targets, the spell wouldn't be a Spread, it would be a Burst."
I was merely pointing out (apparently not clearly enough, hopefully moreso this time) that it is a spread irregardless of target and AoE effect line consideration precisely so it would go around corner(s) and other places not in LOS of the caster because that is what noise does. And what if not noisy is a "Wail". Also why it carries a Sonic descriptor I think we would agree.
And in turn because it is a spread is what leads to potential confusion for some when the issue of targets is brought into the picture.
I think the only significant difference between how you and I would run WotB is in the damage dealt department and on my part that's probably because my mind immediately jumps back to the 3.5 and older versions of the spell which could cause death to a number of creatures equal to your level regardless of how much hp/HD they individually had. Until this thread I really wouldn't have stopped long enough to consider that the damage might have been intended to be a grand total limit not a per creature limit.
Yet, by the same rules, you can't hit an invisible creature without a means to see invisible creatures. That seems a bit more ludicrous.
Is there a place to suggest official errata on spells that obviously make no freaking sense whatsoever? Logic suggests that this is the most poorly worded spell in core.
This is false. Even in melee rules, you can hit an Invisible creature without a means to see invisible creatures, as per attacking a creature with Total Concealment.
We are speaking of targeting spells, not melee/ranged attacks.
PRD magic section wrote:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
Very clearly worded.
You allow magic missile to hit invisible creatures even if the caster can't see them?
To reiterate something that you don't seem to grasp: Wail of the Banshee has a target line, instead of a Area line like in the 3.5 version. That target line has a specific set of rules that aren't bypassed/negated by the spell text.
Apparently someone has never seen the Princess Bride. . .
And as to the developers not weighing in means exactly one thing, that the developers haven't weighed in. It doesn't mean you are right, it doesn't mean you are wrong. Also, in the FAQ que, there are very likely a large number of posts ahead of yours, be patient. (I've been waiting over a month for an answer to a post with > 50 FAQ clicks, and I believe Diego Rossi (forgive me if I'm wrong) has one with > 50 as well.) The developers actually discuss the posts before they get back to us on the answers.
Also, if you believe someone has been attacking you in a post, flag their post. Don't attack them in response. That'll just get your post deleted.
It is a complicated matter, I would be pleasantly surprised to get a reply before the Developers get to have a big brainstorming reunion.
Between the aftermath of the Con, the more urgent questions about the Mythic rules and the playtesting of the new classes I doubt we will see even a tentative reply before December.
I think that the question about Wail of the Banshee is simpler and relatively important because, with the introduction of the mythic rules, we will see more high level adventures and campaigns in the near future (from what I get Wrath of the Righteous will end at above 16h level) .
I have seen The Princess Bride, which is how I knew it was a blatant ad hominem attack. Logic is my forte, the bread and butter of my existence and everything I do. I try to look only at logic whenever I can.
As for the damage of Wail of the Banshee, by logic, it has to be 10/level to every creature affected, especially if it hits down to negative Con (which rips a lot of damage off). If it were 10/level as some have stated, it would not deserve to be above a Level 3 spell because even Fireball could do more damage.
Allow me to offer concrete proof.
We'll have a wizard with the "Standard Fantasy" standard array of ability scores. Let's make it an elf so that starting Int is 17. Assuming all five bonuses are in Int, that makes it 22. Let's have a +5 inherent bonus as well for 27. A +6 enhancement bonus makes that 33 (+11) total.
To have an average monster saving throw, well... A characters Level 20 good save would be base 12, +5 resistance, +5 (assumed average) from an ability score, and likely a +1 from a pale green prism ioun stone for +23. There are too many variables to count here, such as monsters' HD being higher than their CR in most cases and other such things. We'll just assume +23 for this exercise.
CL 20th, Wail of the Banshee would do 200 total, Fort DC 30 negates.
CL 20th, Fireball would do an average of 35 each, Ref DC 24 half.
By the saving throws, only 6 out of 20 will fail against Wail of the Banshee while 1 out of 20 will fail against Fireball. The catch is in the numbers, negates versus half.
On a successful save, Wail of the Banshee does 0 damage, while Fireball will do 17.5.
Now we can figure that maybe 25% of your enemies will have fire resistance or fire immunity, but we can also figure that clever wizards will make versions of fireball using other energy types, which is perfectly fine by the rules. On the other hand, there are several monster types that are outright immune to Wail of the Banshee because it requires a Fortitude save and doesn't affect objects. In addition, immunity to death or sonic renders the spell useless as well. Fireball need only worry about Evasion/Improved Evasion, which only a few classes (and almost no monsters) have.
As such, only 30% of targets of Wail of the Banshee will take damage while 95% of Fireball targets will only take half. Let's use some math here.
Wail of the Banshee average: 200 * 0.30 = 60
Fireball average: (17.5 * 0.95)+(35 * 0.05) = 18.375
Your Fireball need only hit 3.3 targets per casting (on average) to be equally effective as Wail of the Banshee (on average). It takes only 11 targets to outclass even a Wail of the Banshee that does full damage.
Now let's reverse this and make Fireball Level 9. Maximized, Empowered, Intensified Fireball. Now Fireball is doing, on average 116.25 damage per target 5% of the time and 58.125 per target 95% of the time.
Suddenly your Fireball only has to hit a single target to be as effective as Wail of the Banshee, and three targets will on average do more than a full power Wail of the Banshee that does all its damage.
If you go with any other Level 9 spell, the numbers are even worse for Wail of the Banshee.
In conclusion, while I can be swayed on the targeting issue if someone with authority says so or (better yet) if there is errata to change the spell from targets to area, there is absolutely nothing that will persuade me that the damage is 10/level total rather than per target. I would like the official rules clarified so I know whether or not to Rule 0 it. I prefer to follow the actual rules when I can, but only if the rules make sense logically.
I don't see how "logic" applies to discussions of balance really. "Rationality" or "sense" might, but logic seems a very weird choice of words. I might miss some nuance of the word though since English isn't my native language...
Honestly, if you want to go by RAW, I think this is the most rational possible interpretation that does not go against the RAW:
1. You target creatures within a 40ft spread from a chosen point. Normal rules for targeting applies, including that you need LoS/LoE to the targets.
2. The spells effect is applied to the targets in order of closest to center of spread to furthest away from the center. Let the whole damage resolve before going to the next creature (including effects like contingency etc; otherwise that line would be pointless).
3. The spell effect is dealing 10 damage per caster level to the creature.
As for 3, I think both 10/dmg/cl for the whole spell and for each target are about equally valid interpretations, but since 10 dmg/cl/target seems more well-balanced that's what I'd go with. For 1 and 2, I think those are the interpretations most closely matching the stated rules.
This is false. Even in melee rules, you can hit an Invisible creature without a means to see invisible creatures, as per attacking a creature with Total Concealment.
We are speaking of targeting spells, not melee/ranged attacks.
PRD magic section wrote:
--omitted for brevity--
Very clearly worded.
You allow magic missile to hit invisible creatures even if the caster can't see them?
To reiterate something that you don't seem to grasp: Wail of the Banshee has a target line, instead of a Area line like in the 3.5 version. That target line has a specific set of rules that aren't bypassed/negated by the spell text.
Did you just stop reading my post at that point, or are you purposefully quoting me out of context? I can't believe I'm getting drawn back into this...
Magic Missile is clearly a Targeted spell that affects one creature. Wail of the Banshee is a Targeted spell with a Spread affect. Go read the rules for Spread spells and how they interact with creatures that you do not have line of sight. Keep in mind Line of Sight and Line of Effect are not always the same thing.
I understand fully that Wail of the Banshee has a Target line. This is what you don't seem to grasp: the Target line rules are GENERAL rules. They apply to all spells with that type. Wail of the Banshee tells you which creatures get targeted and in which order, according to the last sentence of the Effect block. That is a SPECIFIC rule that TRUMPS THE GENERAL rule of how Targeted spells work.
As to why Pazio changed it from it's 3.X equivalents, I can only guess. My money's on the argument that with Area type spells you get to choose the area affected and the point of origin, as Ilja here seems to think. I'm not even going to entertain that point, as it's just silly. Per the PRD: "When you cast this spell, you emit a terrible, soul-chilling scream that possibly kills..." emphasis mine.
From here down is all speculation on my part, so bear that in mind. Spoiler'd for brevity.
My Humble Guess at Intent And Balance of Power:
In my humble opinion, I'd guess the spell was designed to be used by a BBEG. It's a Necromancy school with the Death descriptor, it doesn't effect Undead or Constructs, with only Verbal Spell Components, and is one Standard action. In my mind, I see a Lich or perhaps some other Necromancy focused Wizard, wading into combat surrounded by Undead. I lean more towards Lich due to their touch attack abilities working well with the short range of WotB, even if Grappled or otherwise restricted since it's Verbal only. As a Spread, it would affect the PC's trying to take down said Lich/Necro even if they were, for instance, a stealthed Rouge, an Invisable spellcaster, or just the Fighter doing the grappling I mentioned earlier. Continuing to assume the spell was designed mainly for GM use against PC's, the power balance "issue" of the spell is much easier to understand. The spell is a 9th level spell to make use of high DC's, but the potential damage (the way I persist the RAW states) is lower so you don't instagib the non-martials caught in the area. The damage is spread from closest first which (hopefully) should be the martial PC's who have the high Fort save and high HP and can take a good hit. If one of the martial PC's fall, the extra damage doesn't go to waste. It rolls over to, perhaps, a Shadowdancer PC who was trying to move in and start using that Flanking bonus. Even using Hide in Plain Sight(Su), the Spread effect of WotB allows the caster to hit that PC too, but it's only roll-over damage, not another full damage hit, which gives that non-martial PC a better chance to get away if things just went too far south since his flanker just died.
It's funny how, the way I interpret RAW, the spell makes perfect sense, is rather useful, and isn't too poorly balanced. Not overpowered, but doing 100 damage at caster level 10 to your frontline fighter PC is nothing to sneeze at, especially after getting chewed on by even a small group of undead.
Wail of the Banshee is a target spell, and nowhere do they note that there is an exception to the targets being the creatures affected.
The "spread" limit serves the same purpose for WotB as the "not more than 30 ft apart" does on the magic missiles. As written, it is an additional restriction to who you can target, in addition to the normal limits of Target spells (requiring LoS for example).
EDIT: I'll put forward some statements here that I think are true:
1. A targeted spell affects its targets.
2. Wail of the Banshee has one target per caster level, and can affect one creature per caster level.
3. By 1 and 2, wail of the banshee affects it's target, and nothing but it's targets. Basically, for wail of the banshee, "affected creatures" and "targets" are synonymous.
4. A (target) spell have you target creatures or objects (depending on the spell) that are in line of sight.
5. A (target) spell may have further restrictions (such as within 30 ft from each other), noted in the (target) line of the spell description.
Are these statements we can agree on being true? If you don't think they are true, whats your reasoning for the specific claim not being true?
Cruel Kindness, you are repeating that "Wail of the Banshee tells you which creatures get targeted and in which order, according to the last sentence of the Effect block. That is a SPECIFIC rule that TRUMPS THE GENERAL rule of how Targeted spells work."
You can point to where in this phrase it say that it supersede the targeting rules?
"Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first."
You see something about affecting creatures that can't be targeted here?
What it give is the order in which valid targets are affected.
Following your logic if that row of text remove the effect of the target row of text and substitute it, so why we have a target line in the spell description?
Instead it integrate it.
Target one living creature/level within a 40-ft.-radius spread
Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first.
So, RAW, you check if a creature can be targeted (so disregarding creatures for which you don't have LOS or LOF) and then you affect them in order from the closest to the point of origin onward.
Magic Missile is clearly a Targeted spell that affects one creature. Wail of the Banshee is a Targeted spell with a Spread affect. Go read the rules for Spread spells and how they interact with creatures that you do not have line of sight. Keep in mind Line of Sight and Line of Effect are not always the same thing.
Holy crap this post is so wrong I don't know where to start.
Nothing in the text supersedes the targeting rules.
Cruel Kindness wrote:
As to why Pazio changed it from it's 3.X equivalents, I can only guess. My money's on the argument that with Area type spells you get to choose the area affected and the point of origin, as Ilja here seems to think. I'm not even going to entertain that point, as it's just silly. Per the PRD: "When you cast this spell, you emit a terrible, soul-chilling scream that possibly kills..." emphasis mine.
Wrong! The line "Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)" means, specifically and exactly, that the caster gets to choose the point of origin within that range.
Then the targets are chosen from that point of origin going outward, up to one per level.
Kayerloth wrote:
Logically from about CR 9 to about CR 14 WotB kills 30% of its targets, while your 9th level Fireball kills about 0%? Say what??
Cruel Kindness wrote:
It's funny how, the way I interpret RAW, the spell makes perfect sense, is rather useful, and isn't too poorly balanced. Not overpowered, but doing 100 damage at caster level 10 to your frontline fighter PC is nothing to sneeze at, especially after getting chewed on by even a small group of undead.
In case you missed it, Wail of the Banshee is a Level 9 spell. That means minimum of caster level 17. You're not going to be hitting CR 9 or 14 unless your GM thinks you're a wuss. If this is his or her interpretation of the spell and you take it, then you are a wuss and not playing your class right. You're also not going to see it do 100 damage.
Lastly, it's funny how you don't understand that the spells are supposed to be balanced for both PCs and enemies.
Also, I should point out that an actual banshee's wail does 140 damage to each creature failing its saving throw. That's yet more proof that the spell is designed to do 10/level/target.
You have a very simplistic and mistaken interpretation. That or the designers screwed the pooch on this one. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I already proved that 10/level total makes it a Level 3 spell. While I can be swayed on the targeting, I can't be swayed on the damage.
Ilja wrote:
I don't see how "logic" applies to discussions of balance really. "Rationality" or "sense" might, but logic seems a very weird choice of words. I might miss some nuance of the word though since English isn't my native language...
Honestly, if you want to go by RAW, I think this is the most rational possible interpretation that does not go against the RAW:
1. You target creatures within a 40ft spread from a chosen point. Normal rules for targeting applies, including that you need LoS/LoE to the targets.
2. The spells effect is applied to the targets in order of closest to center of spread to furthest away from the center. Let the whole damage resolve before going to the next creature (including effects like contingency etc; otherwise that line would be pointless).
3. The spell effect is dealing 10 damage per caster level to the creature.
As for 3, I think both 10/dmg/cl for the whole spell and for each target are about equally valid interpretations, but since 10 dmg/cl/target seems more well-balanced that's what I'd go with. For 1 and 2, I think those are the interpretations most closely matching the stated rules.
That's actually what I'm saying it does, and you're using logic there. Of course, logic, rationality, and common sense most often run the same track.
In case you missed it, Wail of the Banshee is a Level 9 spell. That means minimum of caster level 17. You're not going to be hitting CR 9 or 14 unless your GM thinks you're a wuss. If this is his or her interpretation of the spell and you take it, then you are a wuss and not playing your class right. You're also not going to see it do 100 damage.
No you are right I probably won't be facing a single CR 9 or single CR 14 nor would I use either Wail or your enhanced Fireball on them if I did. Then again I won't be using such a spell against a single CR 20 or 22 either. I'm looking to use it on a fairly large number of foes. Which one do you think I'm more likely to see facing a 20th level caster and his APL 20 party: 16 creatures with CR=16 or 16 creatures with CR=20. While technically accurate the 'average' damage dealt by Wail is misleading in terms of its power. Wail will NEVER do 'average' damage. After the Wail 30% (maybe a bit more considering the lower CR) of the CR=16's are nearly dead (~40 hp remaining) whereas even after failing vs your 9th level Fireball they'll still be around half health (~120 hp left when they fail). Which group of CR 16s is going down faster, the one hit by Wail or the one hit by the 9th level Fireball? And this doesn't even touch on how much larger the area of potential targets is when comparing the Wail to Fireball.
And so no I don't agree with several of your statements with respect to Wail's power vs other spells. But this, as has been previously pointed out, has pretty much nothing to do with whether the spell needs a FAQ button pushed or not.
Except Spreads DON'T need LoS, they ONLY need LoE.
However, nothing in the spell says targets are determined by the spread. It's a target spell, not an area spell - what targets you pick are just limited by what fits within the spread, just like with MM it's limited to "within 30ft".
Just like with the Confusion spell, you can only affect those within line of sight, and they need to be targeted (but with Confusion, everyone within the area that is a valid target (that is, within LoS, is a creature etc) gets targeted, making Confusion behave even more like an area spell).
In case you missed it, Wail of the Banshee is a Level 9 spell. That means minimum of caster level 17. You're not going to be hitting CR 9 or 14 unless your GM thinks you're a wuss. If this is his or her interpretation of the spell and you take it, then you are a wuss and not playing your class right. You're also not going to see it do 100 damage.
No you are right I probably won't be facing a single CR 9 or single CR 14 nor would I use either Wail or your enhanced Fireball on them if I did. Then again I won't be using such a spell against a single CR 20 or 22 either. I'm looking to use it on a fairly large number of foes. Which one do you think I'm more likely to see facing a 20th level caster and his APL 20 party: 16 creatures with CR=16 or 16 creatures with CR=20. While technically accurate the 'average' damage dealt by Wail is misleading in terms of its power. Wail will NEVER do 'average' damage. After the Wail 30% (maybe a bit more considering the lower CR) of the CR=16's are nearly dead (~40 hp remaining) whereas even after failing vs your 9th level Fireball they'll still be around half health (~120 hp left when they fail). Which group of CR 16s is going down faster, the one hit by Wail or the one hit by the 9th level Fireball? And this doesn't even touch on how much larger the area of potential targets is when comparing the Wail to Fireball.
And so no I don't agree with several of your statements with respect to Wail's power vs other spells. But this, as has been previously pointed out, has pretty much nothing to do with whether the spell needs a FAQ button pushed or not.
It has everything to do with it!
Your math is also grossly wrong. The debate is about whether or not the damage is 10/level total. Even against lower CR creatures, you might hit two before you run out of damage. By the time you have Wail of the Banshee, any enemies you run into will have over 100 hit points, and you'll be doing 170-200 maximum. The only time you'll hit more is if you're facing ten or more enemies at CR 8 or lower, and even then, they wouldn't be a threat and could be killed faster and easier with Fireball.
As such, this is indeed worth an FAQ push, it's stupid to suggest otherwise.
Unless, of course, a consensus of all people are ready to agree that the damage is 10/level per target rather than total.
Wrong! The line "Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)" means, specifically and exactly, that the caster gets to choose the point of origin within that range.
Then the targets are chosen from that point of origin going outward, up to one per level.
I may be pointing out the obvious, but its important to remember that the range is the max range of the effects of the spell as well as the max distance to set an originating point of the spell.
So, a 20th level caster can set the target at 75 feet, but the guy at 80 feet won't be affected, even though he is within 40 feet of the center point.
@DGL You misunderstand me. The power level of the spell in and of itself has nothing to do with making it FAQ worthy (errata worthy maybe but not FAQ). Clarity of whether or not it is 10hp/level total vs 10hp/level per creature is potential FAQ material.
As for my math: The numbers I use is based off numbers pulled from the Bestiary, Monster Creation rules Table:Monster Statistics by CR and numbers provided by you. The amount of damage is based on numbers you provided in your post a bit up thread, namely the part after this:
Allow me to offer concrete proof.:
We'll have a wizard with the "Standard Fantasy" standard array of ability scores. Let's make it an elf so that starting Int is 17. Assuming all five bonuses are in Int, that makes it 22. Let's have a +5 inherent bonus as well for 27. A +6 enhancement bonus makes that 33 (+11) total.
To have an average monster saving throw, well... A characters Level 20 good save would be base 12, +5 resistance, +5 (assumed average) from an ability score, and likely a +1 from a pale green prism ioun stone for +23. There are too many variables to count here, such as monsters' HD being higher than their CR in most cases and other such things. We'll just assume +23 for this exercise.
CL 20th, Wail of the Banshee would do 200 total, Fort DC 30 negates.
CL 20th, Fireball would do an average of 35 each, Ref DC 24 half.
By the saving throws, only 6 out of 20 will fail against Wail of the Banshee while 1 out of 20 will fail against Fireball. The catch is in the numbers, negates versus half.
On a successful save, Wail of the Banshee does 0 damage, while Fireball will do 17.5.
Now we can figure that maybe 25% of your enemies will have fire resistance or fire immunity, but we can also figure that clever wizards will make versions of fireball using other energy types, which is perfectly fine by the rules. On the other hand, there are several monster types that are outright immune to Wail of the Banshee because it requires a Fortitude save and doesn't affect objects. In addition, immunity to death or sonic renders the spell useless as well. Fireball need only worry about Evasion/Improved Evasion, which only a few classes (and almost no monsters) have.
As such, only 30% of targets of Wail of the Banshee will take damage while 95% of Fireball targets will only take half. Let's use some math here.
Wail of the Banshee average: 200 * 0.30 = 60
Fireball average: (17.5 * 0.95)+(35 * 0.05) = 18.375
Your Fireball need only hit 3.3 targets per casting (on average) to be equally effective as Wail of the Banshee (on average). It takes only 11 targets to outclass even a Wail of the Banshee that does full damage.
Now let's reverse this and make Fireball Level 9. Maximized, Empowered, Intensified Fireball. Now Fireball is doing, on average 116.25 damage per target 5% of the time and 58.125 per target 95% of the time.
Other than subtracting your damage from the hp totals provided from the Bestiary table I didn't do any math so I'm left wondering what grossly wrong math calculations I've done? Last time I checked about 240 hp minus 200 is about 40 if you are looking at a CR=16 creature. Ditto for about 240 minus 120(116.25) being about 120hp or half health. Or are you referring to something else?
Edit: And I am assuming that it is 10hp/level/creature in my "math". Obviously if it's only 10hp/level total damage then it is a weaker spell and I would use it differently (if at all). I believe your mention of Wail in the Banshee creature description is an solid arguement in favor of it being a per creature amount and not total, but it is also a creature's supernatural power that is obviously more powerful than the spell in other ways.
