|
Blame me for this: I played an Out of Retirement with John Compton at PaizoCon and mentioned this as one of the spells on my battle oracle. He indicated at that time that he had specifically never intended this spell to be available on the Additional Resources, and anticipated correcting that in the next update.
As of 4 days ago, so judged.
Did you mention the rest of the spells in the Monster Codex? It seems odd that he'd specifically call that one out when all of them were already legal.
|
|
Blame me for this: I played an Out of Retirement with John Compton at PaizoCon and mentioned this as one of the spells on my battle oracle. He indicated at that time that he had specifically never intended this spell to be available on the Additional Resources, and anticipated correcting that in the next update.
As of 4 days ago, so judged.
Hehe, I remember that. Honestly can't say that I was surprised. As for the Burst of Radiance ban idea, I'd give that thought a solid "no". Arcane casters shouldn't be the only ones that have viable AoE options for spell damage.
Contributor
|
Blame me for this: I played an Out of Retirement with John Compton at PaizoCon and mentioned this as one of the spells on my battle oracle. He indicated at that time that he had specifically never intended this spell to be available on the Additional Resources, and anticipated correcting that in the next update.
As of 4 days ago, so judged.
Actually, it's my fault. I mentioned it to him that Thursday morning of PaizoCon while we were chatting in the store. Wrote it down and everything.
|
Actually, it's my fault. I mentioned it to him that Thursday morning of PaizoCon while we were chatting in the store. Wrote it down and everything.Blame me for this: I played an Out of Retirement with John Compton at PaizoCon and mentioned this as one of the spells on my battle oracle. He indicated at that time that he had specifically never intended this spell to be available on the Additional Resources, and anticipated correcting that in the next update.
As of 4 days ago, so judged.
Actually, it's my fault. I picked this as one of my alchemist's infusions. John Compton cast scry on character sheet and realized what a mistake he had made.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it's my fault. I picked this as one of my alchemist's infusions. John Compton cast scry on character sheet and realized what a mistake he had made.Actually, it's my fault. I mentioned it to him that Thursday morning of PaizoCon while we were chatting in the store. Wrote it down and everything.Blame me for this: I played an Out of Retirement with John Compton at PaizoCon and mentioned this as one of the spells on my battle oracle. He indicated at that time that he had specifically never intended this spell to be available on the Additional Resources, and anticipated correcting that in the next update.
As of 4 days ago, so judged.
Actually, it's my fault. My next character was going to be called Ron Skin just so that when I cast ironskin I could call out "I, Ron Skin!" Apparently that pun was so bad the only way to stop it was to ban ironskin.
|
Hehe, I remember that. Honestly can't say that I was surprised. As for the Burst of Radiance ban idea, I'd give that thought a solid "no". Arcane casters shouldn't be the only ones that have viable AoE options for spell damage.
It's a Ref or Blind effect that works on constructs and undead, also the bigger the foe the worse their save bonus is and blindness wrecks combat monsters etc. If having burst damage is a priority, there's always sound burst. If burst of radiance is unnegotiable, at least have it target Fortitude.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, we can all argue about what spell should get banned next or we can all make horrible jokes and puns about ironskin. I think we all know the appropriate course of action.
I left my husband because he can no longer satisfy me after he encountered that rust monster while under the effects of Ironskin.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a Ref or Blind effect that works on constructs and undead, also the bigger the foe the worse their save bonus is and blindness wrecks combat monsters etc. If having burst damage is a priority, there's always sound burst. If burst of radiance is unnegotiable, at least have it target Fortitude.
Hehe, I remember that. Honestly can't say that I was surprised. As for the Burst of Radiance ban idea, I'd give that thought a solid "no". Arcane casters shouldn't be the only ones that have viable AoE options for spell damage.
I object to it on the grounds that a burst of light shouldn't be able to damage anything that is blind, even if it is evil.
My first encounter with it was when someone cast it on an evil ooze.
Explain to me how something based on light can harm something that cannot see light.
Searing Light, at least, has the excuse that it is a ray, so it emulates a laser.
|
|
Holiness. The spell has the [good] descriptor, as well as the [light] descriptor.
So, should the damage be "Divine" rather than untyped, then? Especially since it is yet another spell where the damage part does not get any sort of save, and the Reflex (Reflex? Not Fortitude?) save is inconsequential if the target is blind to begin with.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a Ref or Blind effect that works on constructs and undead, also the bigger the foe the worse their save bonus is and blindness wrecks combat monsters etc. If having burst damage is a priority, there's always sound burst. If burst of radiance is unnegotiable, at least have it target Fortitude.
Hehe, I remember that. Honestly can't say that I was surprised. As for the Burst of Radiance ban idea, I'd give that thought a solid "no". Arcane casters shouldn't be the only ones that have viable AoE options for spell damage.I object to it on the grounds that a burst of light shouldn't be able to damage anything that is blind, even if it is evil.
My first encounter with it was when someone cast it on an evil ooze.
Explain to me how something based on light can harm something that cannot see light.
Searing Light, at least, has the excuse that it is a ray, so it emulates a laser.
Classic vampire. If he closes his eyes is he now immune to the sun?
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, between this and the MotFF discussion, there sure seems to be a lot of folks who want to see stuff banned just because they don't like/agree with it.
These are not broken things, these are not overpowering things.
How about instead of calling for bans, if you do not like something, just don't do/use/play it?
These calls for something to be banned/retired because someone doesn't like it, or worse, "we just can't agree on it, so we should ban it"... congratulations, because you can't agree, you should get your way by default by having the thing removed entirely. Wonderful... need to stop. It is not a healthy intellectual process to simply ban that which we do not agree with.
/soapbox
|
|
Holiness. The spell has the [good] descriptor, as well as the [light] descriptor.So, should the damage be "Divine" rather than untyped, then? Especially since it is yet another spell where the damage part does not get any sort of save, and the Reflex (Reflex? Not Fortitude?) save is inconsequential if the target is blind to begin with.
Wouldn't bother me if it was, but I don't think that there would be any mechanical difference. (Unless that meant that it healed good characters, like a Celestial Sorcerer's Heavenly Fire. Which would be very interesting.)
The issue for me is that I have a character who has specialized in [light] spells (via Angelic Flesh - Gold), and this and Snapdragon Fireworks are the only damage-dealing spells available. Please don't relegate me to only using Snapdragon Fireworks!
|
|
Wow, between this and the MotFF discussion, there sure seems to be a lot of folks who want to see stuff banned just because they don't like/agree with it.
These are not broken things, these are not overpowering things.
How about instead of calling for bans, if you do not like something, just don't do/use/play it?
/soapbox
Well, I don't use it, because I think area blindness for 1d4 rds is too powerful. But I can't bloody well stop others from using it, can I?
Well, unless they ban it based on this thread. Not getting my hopes up. Maybe review it at least? That and Blood Armor. Blood Armor's just silly.
|
|
Wow, between this and the MotFF discussion, there sure seems to be a lot of folks who want to see stuff banned just because they don't like/agree with it.
These are not broken things, these are not overpowering things.
How about instead of calling for bans, if you do not like something, just don't do/use/play it?
These calls for something to be banned/retired because someone doesn't like it, or worse, "we just can't agree on it, so we should ban it"... congratulations, because you can't agree, you should get your way by default by having the thing removed entirely. Wonderful... need to stop. It is not a healthy intellectual process to simply ban that which we do not agree with.
/soapbox
Please don't paint everyone with the same brush. I wouldn't object if the spell had some sort of internal consistency, but having a Light spell, that is a general glow, not sunlight bright, cause damage to something that is blind, does not make sense, has no consistency for me.
And, as someone mentioned, it is a bit overpowered. Between my Sorc casting it, and another PC using a Gem of Brightness, we turned an encounter in a scenario into a two round joke. All 5 enemies failed their saves, so all were blinded.
Wow, between this and the MotFF discussion, there sure seems to be a lot of folks who want to see stuff banned just because they don't like/agree with it.
These are not broken things, these are not overpowering things.
How about instead of calling for bans, if you do not like something, just don't do/use/play it?
These calls for something to be banned/retired because someone doesn't like it, or worse, "we just can't agree on it, so we should ban it"... congratulations, because you can't agree, you should get your way by default by having the thing removed entirely. Wonderful... need to stop. It is not a healthy intellectual process to simply ban that which we do not agree with.
/soapbox
Please don't paint everyone with the same brush. I wouldn't object if the spell had some sort of internal consistency, but having a Light spell, that is a general glow, not sunlight bright, cause damage to something that is blind, does not make sense, has no consistency for me.
And, as someone mentioned, it is a bit overpowered. Between my Sorc casting it, and another PC using a Gem of Brightness, we turned an encounter in a scenario into a two round joke. All 5 enemies failed their saves, so all were blinded.
You could do exactly the same thing with glitterdust, a CRB spell. The 1d4 per CL damage addition is offset by the SR:yes and lack of stealth detection. The spells are roughly equivalent. The internal consistency of the spell is purely subjective: I see absolutely no problem with it given that it only harms evil creatures. Clearly it is the holy power, not the strength, of the light that causes the harm.
It's amusing because you accuse him of painting and then grab that brush and lather it all over yourself.
If you don't want extra character options, some of which will be equivalent or better than core, go play core PFS.
|
Wow, between this and the MotFF discussion, there sure seems to be a lot of folks who want to see stuff banned just because they don't like/agree with it.
These are not broken things, these are not overpowering things.
How about instead of calling for bans, if you do not like something, just don't do/use/play it?
These calls for something to be banned/retired because someone doesn't like it, or worse, "we just can't agree on it, so we should ban it"... congratulations, because you can't agree, you should get your way by default by having the thing removed entirely. Wonderful... need to stop. It is not a healthy intellectual process to simply ban that which we do not agree with.
/soapbox
...Man, soapboxes are OP, Paizo please fix.
|
|
Wow, between this and the MotFF discussion, there sure seems to be a lot of folks who want to see stuff banned just because they don't like/agree with it.
These are not broken things, these are not overpowering things.
How about instead of calling for bans, if you do not like something, just don't do/use/play it?
These calls for something to be banned/retired because someone doesn't like it, or worse, "we just can't agree on it, so we should ban it"... congratulations, because you can't agree, you should get your way by default by having the thing removed entirely. Wonderful... need to stop. It is not a healthy intellectual process to simply ban that which we do not agree with.
/soapbox
Please don't paint everyone with the same brush. I wouldn't object if the spell had some sort of internal consistency, but having a Light spell, that is a general glow, not sunlight bright, cause damage to something that is blind, does not make sense, has no consistency for me.
And, as someone mentioned, it is a bit overpowered. Between my Sorc casting it, and another PC using a Gem of Brightness, we turned an encounter in a scenario into a two round joke. All 5 enemies failed their saves, so all were blinded.
You could do exactly the same thing with glitterdust, a CRB spell. The 1d4 per CL damage addition is offset by the SR:yes and lack of stealth detection. The spells are roughly equivalent. The internal consistency of the spell is purely subjective: I see absolutely no problem with it given that it only harms evil creatures. Clearly it is the holy power, not the strength, of the light that causes the harm.
It's amusing because you accuse him of painting and then grab that brush and lather it all over yourself.
If you don't want extra character options, some of which will be equivalent or better than core, go play core PFS.
Internal consistency? Reflex save to avoid the blindness? Seriously?
And add in that, even if you make the Reflex save, if it is even appropriate, there is no save against the damage, if it is applicable.The spell has serious issues in the way it is written up, as parts of it do not make a lot of sense.
Edit: Note I am not the person asking for it to be banned. I am just asking for it to be errataed into something that makes sense, or includes the information that is missing that would make it make sense.
|
|
Well obviously* the Reflex save is to see if you closed your eyes quickly enough to avoid being blinded. (Similar to the Reflex save for Burning Disarm, which means you opened your fingers quickly enough that you dropped the object before being burned.) But you don't get to reduce the damage because...ummm...the area of effect is completely infused with unavoidable holiness.
See. Perfectly explainable. And if you don't like those, don't worry -- I can totally keep throwing more words at the problem until it makes sense.
*note: not actually obvious
|
|
Is it me, or are people simply overlooking the fact that the damage only affects creatures of evil alignment? Sure, a good number of things in PFS are evil aligned, but not everything. Seems like a good counter balance if you ask me.
It's also like a baby Holy Smite in that the damage caps out relatively early. Sure, you can spend traits, feats, and items to optimize it. It's making a one trick pony like an optimized envoker. It's a nice trick but you'll need other things in your arsenal.