Honestly, if they meant it that way, that's a really vauge way of wording it. To, me 'acting normally' just means being able to take your standard and move actions, and you theoretically could do that even after being thrown across the room. If you fail the save though, it specifically says that you lose your turn and end up prone, so there you definately are not 'acting normally'.
Yes, I understand what you are saying, but the way I read it, and feel the way they intended it, is the 'throwing' of the target is done with the battering of them, they go together.
So if you make your save, you resisted their Telekinesis and cannot be moved or battered for that round. I don't think the spell was intended to move people around without hurting them. As for throwing them off cliffs, I don't see why you can't as long as the bottom of that cliff is within 30' of the target's original position. But then you really aren't throwing them off the cliff anymore, but battering them at the floor of the cliff.
Again, I don't feel the spell is intended to use just move them. In the cliff example, you can't throw them off the cliff and let gravity take over. Part of the spell is you need to 'batter' them against something. You can't batter air.
I would rule against the AOO for the spell. It mentions in the text of the spell that you are using the target as a weapon. Last I checked you could not AOO a weapon. Furthermore, I think that the AOO idea goes against the spirit of the spell as well.
I would rule against the AOO for the spell. It mentions in the text of the spell that you are using the target as a weapon. Last I checked you could not AOO a weapon. Furthermore, I think that the AOO idea goes against the spirit of the spell as well.
Well I don't totally agree with that argument because they are not an weapon even if they are used as one. This falls more into the category of falling object, although of course the direction of that falling varies considerably and falling doesn't always mean moving very fast down it just means you are being pulled to something else.
Like I said a reflex roll to see if you react fast enough to getting in a OOA would be a good place to start. Also you could make it a requirement that the group has to be prepared that the caster might do this and know what to do when the occasion arrives.
Lastly it doesn't break the spirit of the spell because the spell is still being used as written but it is being used in a creative way that adds to the spirit of the spell. Of course that is a matter of opinion but that is my opinion.
Regarding the AoO for Enemy Hammer, I'd treat it like a Bull Rush. Meaning, no AoO for being forcibly moved.
Of course, not sure what to make of Greater Bull Rush in this case.
Even if you treat it as Bull Rush it would still provoke OOA because of the simple fact that Bull Rush is basically like charging but only when you have the feat improved bull rush. Charging does not OOA from the target of the charge and neither does the target of an improved bull rush, but those who are not target of such said attack(s) still provoke if you move through their threaten area.
The target you intend to ram into with your first target for enemy hammer would not be provoked because that is the target of the improved bull rush, just for the sake of speed.
BTW:
Bull Rush
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a
charge, in place of the melee attack. You can only bull rush an
opponent who is no more than on size category larger than
you. A bull rush attempts to push an opponent straight back
without doing any harm. If you do not have the Improved Bull
Rush feat, or a similar ability, initiating a bull rush provokes
an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
This also implies that all other OOA still count.
So technically if an ally of your enemy doesn't mind attacking his friend being flung into him he could avoid damage possibly with a OOA. Even then I would argue that he would need at least a heavy blunt weapon to batter the flying ally out of the way. Which in that case does more damage to that first enemy target and makes for a more enjoyable and fun game, which is the true spirit of the game which will and should always trump the spirit of any said ability, skill or rule.
Let me just point out this simple fact. In order for this tactic to be used it would be high situational or would need to be set up in advanced know that the Wizard was going to cast the bleeding spell. So they would have to form a straight line or even better yet a gauntlet of allies so that the wizard can throw the enemy through the OOA of very single ally you have.
In most cases the wizard will only be able to pass the target of a Enemy Hammer spell through 1 person's OOA at minimum and 3 at the most. Also like I said before there should be at least a reflex roll of DC 15 to see if they can react fast enough to make a OOA.
The tactic is less powerful than one might assume because I think we tend to think in the most favorable situations as possible but that is hardly ever the case.
Lastly, I would also like to mention that this tactic WORKS both ways. The GM is more the able and perhaps more so to use this tactic against the players as well as they are against the enemies he sets up for the players.
|
I don't see anything in this spell description that leads me to believe that the guy being flung about should provoke any attacks of opportunity. The mechanical nature of the spell, were I to adjudicate it, would be this:
Player chooses target (we'll call this guy "X")
X rolls his fort save vs. Whatever the caster's save DC for a 6th level spell is.
If X makes the Save:
X is not moved. The PC now has 10 (or whatever) rounds left of this effect.
If X fails the save:
X is flung across the room and is used to attack target Y. The attack roll is made as indicated in the text. If the attack roll is successful:
X and Y take appropriate damage as described. X loses all actions until the start of the PC's next turn (a full round), and ends their own turn prone in a square adjacent to Y. For my own part, I'm not going to move him there, I'm just going to place him there. No AOO's.
If the attack roll is unsuccessful:
X loses all actions until the start of the PC's next turn (a full round), and ends their own turn prone in a square adjacent to Y. For my own part, I'm not going to move him there, I'm just going to place him there. No AOO's.
I'm not saying this is the right or wrong way to do it, but it's the reading I take without extrapolating anything from what was written. YMM, of course, V.
Aqueous orb looks neat - glad to see a water spell that doesn't deal ice damage. Hopefully there are similar spells for earth and air.
Absolutely. I've always wanted to play a sorcerer with an innate connection to all the elements - not an elemental bloodline, since that's tied to a specific element, but to all four equally. It's never really been a concept that 3.5 handled well, nor did Pathfinder so far. I have high hopes for the APG changing that, though...
Re: whether or not you can still move the target freely if they PASS their Save, I believe you can simply because the Spell Header says ¨Save: Fort (Partial)¨. If passing the Save negates the movement as well (besides damage and prone condition) what exactly is the other aspect of the spell that still gets thru to qualify it as a Partial Save?
Anyhow, Spell Resistance still applies. ¨Worst case¨ I see is another reason for low-Fort Save Casters to prep something like Misdirection or have some other defence on Contingency. And if the casters are focusing on each other, doesn`t that leave an opportunity for other classes to shine? This is a 6th level arcane spell we`re talking about here.
Re:AoO`s, whether or not one wants to concede that the movement from the spell can itself trigger AoO`s, what was the original ûber usage being discussed? Knocking them against the ceiling/whatever and letting them drop - and falling provokes per RAW, so AoO`s will be very possible whatever the case. I DO believe the telekinetic movement itself provokes, since movement normally does whether done on your turn or off it in cases like falling. The fact that the rules for (non-Greater) Bullrush have to specifically mention that it doesn`t provoke reflects the fact that the general rule is that movement DOES provoke (and non-Greater Bullrush is an exception to that rule)... But the spell doesn`t ever reference Bull Rush (or the non-provoking exception). I`m actually surprised that CMB isn`t even used, it seems reasonable to make a Caster Level Check vs. CMD, but the old 3.5 approach of Fort Save is being used. (TK`s Will Save is consistent, but if it`s brute force only why not use the mechanic made for that?)
Anyhow, it still hasn`t been answered whether the spell text is the actual APG text, or has been edited in someway (for brevity), as happened in earlier previews. If we`re not looking at the actual spell, niggling over words is moot.
Re: the wierd wording re: Stat used for attack roll (to throw them), I find it even wierder that the equivalent text used for Telekinesis` Violent Thrust function (which works almost identically) uses a very different wording - one of the bases of coherent rules text is that identical mechanics should try to use identical wording when possible - after all there`s a million ways to phrase something in English, but if everytime a mechanic is mentioned it is re-phrased in some cute way, it becomes much more difficult to interpret the rules correctly
Violent Thrust: (...)You must succeed on attack rolls (one per creature or object thrown) to hit the target with the items, using your base attack bonus + your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer).
Enemy Hammer: The attack bonus for this attack is equal to your caster level plus either your Intelligence or Charisma modifier (whichever is higher).
Crucially, Telekinesis specifically says that a Passed Save results in the target (or rather, would-be ammunition) not being moved at all, which Enemy Hammer doesn`t say (which goes along with E.H. listing Save: Fort(Partial) and TK listing Save: Will (negates).
I do have a hard time understanding why this spell uses a Fort Save, but Telekinesis uses a Will Save....If I didn`t say before, the art for Aqueous Orb is awesome!!! (I also like non-Cold damage water spells)
...Will there also be alternate versions of the Elemental Bloodlines for Sorcerors to these new approaches to the Elements? Will the new Elemenal Schools also cover non-Elemental spells, i.e. as a complete alternative to categorizing ALL spells? (would a normal non-Elemental Wizard now be able to take School Focus: Earth, which crosses multiple normal magic schools?)
Re: whether or not you can still move the target freely if they PASS their Save, I believe you can simply because the Spell Header says ¨Save: Fort (Partial)¨. If passing the Save negates the movement as well (besides damage and prone condition) what exactly is the other aspect of the spell that still gets thru to qualify it as a Partial Save?
The fact that the spell is not negated. You can keep throwing him around (or trying to) until it ends. From the spell description:
"The target creature can make a Fortitude saving throw each time you attempt to use it as a weapon. If it makes its saving throw, it can act normally, but if it fails its save, it loses all action for the round and ends its turn prone in a square adjacent to the target of your attack."
He has to make the save each round or be used as a missile. If he makes it he acts normally, if he fails he ends up prone next to the target. Fairly straightforward I'd say.
The fact that the spell is not negated. You can keep throwing him around (or trying to) until it ends.
AFAIK, other spells with ¨Save (partial)¨ have some effect on the target if they pass their Save. If you pass every Save (partial) of Enemy Hammer, there would be no effect by your interpretation. Do you know any example of a Save (partial) spell where the (partial) solely refers to having to make another Save in a future round (per your interpretation)? I`m not aware of any, and the rest of the text is written such that the movement is indeed an effect that always occurs, and the damage and prone condition are the ones dependent on the Save.
Anyhow, I can see the logic behind what you`re saying, but that begs the question why Telekinesis` Violent Thrust must explicitly say that the target is not moved whilst Enemy Hammer does not say that. Why is ¨Save (x) (partial/negate)¨ sufficient for one spell, but insufficient for another? ...At the least, it would seem an inconistent standard for describing spells. I have no idea what Jason`s true intent may be here, and as I said, I have no idea if this is the actual rules text, since Jason edited the rules text previously (trimming parts he thought extraneous, though also important in that case).
-+---------------+-----------------+-
Anyhow, what about that HOT aqueous orb pic, huh?
AFAIK, other spells with ¨Save (partial)¨ have some effect on the target if they pass their Save. If you pass every Save (partial) of Enemy Hammer, there would be no effect by your interpretation. Do you know any example of a Save (partial) spell where the (partial) solely refers to having to make another Save in a future round (per your interpretation)? I`m not aware of any, and the rest of the text is written such that the movement is indeed an effect that always occurs, and the damage and prone condition are the ones dependent on the Save.
The violent thrust (which you mention below) has a save that negates for the individual target. It can effect up to 15 targets, each getting a save. Enemy Hammer is targeted on one individual who has to make multiple sequential saves to avoid the spell effects. Seems like a fair trade off to me. I'd say the damage only occurs with the movement. To wit:
"If you successfully hit the new target with the creature, both it and the creature take damage based on the creature's size (Fine 1d4, Diminutive 1d6, Tiny 1d8, Small 1d10, Medium 2d6, Large 2d8, Huge 2d10, Gargantuan 3d6, Colossal 3d8)."
To hit the creature / cause damage (to both) the target of the spell has to move.
Anyhow, I can see the logic behind what you`re saying, but that begs the question why Telekinesis` Violent Thrust must explicitly say that the target is not moved whilst Enemy Hammer does not say that. Why is ¨Save (x) (partial/negate)¨ sufficient for one spell, but insufficient for another? ...At the least, it would seem an inconistent standard for describing spells. I have no idea what Jason`s true intent may be here, and as I said, I have no idea if this is the actual rules text, since Jason edited the rules text previously (trimming parts he thought extraneous, though also important in that case).
The desription says: "If it makes its saving throw, it can act normally,". Acting normally would include not being moved by the spell. New spell, new ground being covered (no pun intended). If the description has been abreviated the full text will settle it I'd say. My take anyway.
AFAIK, other spells with ¨Save (partial)¨ have some effect on the target if they pass their Save. If you pass every Save (partial) of Enemy Hammer, there would be no effect by your interpretation.
Your argument stretches in order to make no sense.
Acting normally would include not being moved by the spell.
I'm really not sure what the spell is trying to say, but I have to admit that this point here doesn't really seem to make any sense. Why exactly would acting normally mean you wouldn't move?
|
My own opinion? I don't think it said anywhere that it negated the movement or damage. Considering the level of the spell and comparing to other spells, I'd say as long as the character spends the standard action to use enemy hammer each round, the movement and the damage always happens as long as the attack roll succeeded. What the fortitude save dictates is simply whether the creature is knocked prone and loses all its actions or whether it can charge the guy who just slammed into his body or not. ALSO: yes throwing them into a prismatic wall or greater glyph of warding or into a room with symbol of death does seem kinda hot.
Acting normally would include not being moved by the spell.I'm really not sure what the spell is trying to say, but I have to admit that this point here doesn't really seem to make any sense. Why exactly would acting normally mean you wouldn't move?
That the target would be able to move, attack etc., or not, as it wished. It simply means the spell has no effect for that round leaving the target free to do what it wants to do (and can do). The effect of the spell is to move the target causing damage to the target and (possibly) anything it hits. Personally I can see the "human battering ram" on that stubborn door...
That the target would be able to move, attack etc., or not, as it wished. It simply means the spell has no effect for that round leaving the target free to do what it wants to do (and can do). The effect of the spell is to move the target causing damage to the target and (possibly) anything it hits. Personally I can see the "human battering ram" on that stubborn door...Acting normally would include not being moved by the spell.I'm really not sure what the spell is trying to say, but I have to admit that this point here doesn't really seem to make any sense. Why exactly would acting normally mean you wouldn't move?
But the spell moving the target doesn't change any of that. Being knocked prone and losing your action would change it, of course, but if you get moved and take damage, why would you suddenly be unable to move yourself, attack, cast a spell, or whatever?
OK, it looks like the whole OOA thing will really boil down to whatever the GM decides unless one of the writers stop by and says whether it does or not. I personally says it does provoke.
Now that is aside I want to Enemy Hammer a cleric though a wall of fire and into a blade barrier that is hovering over a grease spell. The little bit of flame still on his body from the fire wall would be enough to ignite the grease spell and lets see if their God can help them now that they are Diced Cleric Flambe dish.
If only there was a wall of oil or grease spell. :)
My own opinion? I don't think it said anywhere that it negated the movement or damage.
To quote the spell description:
"The target creature can make a Fortitude saving throw each time you attempt to use it as a weapon. If it makes its saving throw, it can act normally,"When you *attempt* to use it (throw it) the target gets a save. If it succeeds it can act normally. Flying through the air and bumping into things is not what I'd call "normal". Imo, the save negates the effect of the spell for that round with the caster getting repeated tries until he runs out of rounds in the spell duration.
OK, it looks like the whole OOA thing will really boil down to whatever the GM decides unless one of the writers stop by and says whether it does or not. I personally says it does provoke.
When it said "you use the target as a weapon" that settled the AoO for me. Using a weapon doesn't provoke an AoO. If you fire a bow at the enemy do they get an AoO on the arrow as it passes by? As for it being larger than a normal projectile, if it was a catapult stone would you get an AoO as it passed by? No, imho, of course. You're just being sadistic :D
Now that is aside I want to Enemy Hammer a cleric though a wall of fire and into a blade barrier that is hovering over a grease spell. The little bit of flame still on his body from the fire wall would be enough to ignite the grease spell and lets see if their God can help them now that they are Diced Cleric Flambe dish.If only there was a wall of oil or grease spell. :)
Have everybody else target him with flasks of oil... just for fun :)
OK, it looks like the whole OOA thing will really boil down to whatever the GM decides unless one of the writers stop by and says whether it does or not. I personally says it does provoke.
Now that is aside I want to Enemy Hammer a cleric though a wall of fire and into a blade barrier that is hovering over a grease spell. The little bit of flame still on his body from the fire wall would be enough to ignite the grease spell and lets see if their God can help them now that they are Diced Cleric Flambe dish.
If only there was a wall of oil or grease spell. :)
Grease isn't, by the rules, flammable. As a matter of fact, WotC introduced a second level spell that acts as Grease except it is explicitly flammable and has rules for it.
OK, it looks like the whole OOA thing will really boil down to whatever the GM decides unless one of the writers stop by and says whether it does or not. I personally says it does provoke.
When it said "you use the target as a weapon" that settled the AoO for me. Using a weapon doesn't provoke an AoO. If you fire a bow at the enemy do they get an AoO on the arrow as it passes by? As for it being larger than a normal projectile, if it was a catapult stone would you get an AoO as it passed by? No, imho, of course. You're just being sadistic :D
Now that is aside I want to Enemy Hammer a cleric though a wall of fire and into a blade barrier that is hovering over a grease spell. The little bit of flame still on his body from the fire wall would be enough to ignite the grease spell and lets see if their God can help them now that they are Diced Cleric Flambe dish.If only there was a wall of oil or grease spell. :)
Have everybody else target him with flasks of oil... just for fun :)
OK, I know that we don't agree on the OOA because of the matter of semantics BUT the following proposal is just for fun.
You have your group ready flasks of oil and have them form a gauntlet, you then set up a two walls right behind them, one would be prismatic and the other would be fire, behind this would be a blade barrier.
You Enemy Hammer a cleric, (always go for the healers first) and send him down the gauntlet, everyone OOAs with oil flasks, he goes through the prismatic and gets really messed up, he goes through the fire and and after catching on fire you send up over the blade barrier 30 feet and then let him drop.
It doesn't matter at this point if any of this is now legal or not. It is all about the sadistic fun now. :)
Grease isn't, by the rules, flammable. As a matter of fact, WotC introduced a second level spell that acts as Grease except it is explicitly flammable and has rules for it.OK, it looks like the whole OOA thing will really boil down to whatever the GM decides unless one of the writers stop by and says whether it does or not. I personally says it does provoke.
Now that is aside I want to Enemy Hammer a cleric though a wall of fire and into a blade barrier that is hovering over a grease spell. The little bit of flame still on his body from the fire wall would be enough to ignite the grease spell and lets see if their God can help them now that they are Diced Cleric Flambe dish.
If only there was a wall of oil or grease spell. :)
Well when I hear the words fire and grease I hear grease fire.
Besides, this isn't WoTC
That aside, even if the Grease Spell can't be ignited, having it over a blade barrier spell is really funny especially when they fail the grease spell.
|
|
To quote the spell description:
"The target creature can make a Fortitude saving throw each time you attempt to use it as a weapon. If it makes its saving throw, it can act normally,"When you *attempt* to use it (throw it) the target gets a save. If it succeeds it can act normally. Flying through the air and bumping into things is not what I'd call "normal". Imo, the save negates the effect of the spell for that round with the caster getting repeated tries until he runs out of rounds in the spell duration.
+1 to this. It seems to me that if the target fails their Fort save (I am not sure why it's a fort save either, but ok), then they're moved, and if they're moved, then they spend an entire round prone near their target. The interpretation of this that I'm hearing basically boils down to "whether or not you pass your save, expect to be prone and losing all your actions for 10+ rounds". This can't be the case for a couple of reasons: First, while there are Save or Suck spells, there are very few (if any) Suck Whether or Not You Save spells. Second, Jason called out that he didn't find the spell to be particularly powerful, so I really doubt it's a complete lockdown spell for 10+ rounds.
The fact that there's this level of discussion over a teaser for the book makes me worried, not going to lie.
If I has to guess, I'd say it's a fort save because the damage scales by size, and larger creatures are generally going to have higher fort saves, as mentioned earlier. Probably a balance issue, as such.
But the spell moving the target doesn't change any of that. Being knocked prone and losing your action would change it, of course, but if you get moved and take damage, why would you suddenly be unable to move yourself, attack, cast a spell, or whatever?That the target would be able to move, attack etc., or not, as it wished. It simply means the spell has no effect for that round leaving the target free to do what it wants to do (and can do). The effect of the spell is to move the target causing damage to the target and (possibly) anything it hits. Personally I can see the "human battering ram" on that stubborn door...Acting normally would include not being moved by the spell.I'm really not sure what the spell is trying to say, but I have to admit that this point here doesn't really seem to make any sense. Why exactly would acting normally mean you wouldn't move?
It's extremely powerful otherwise. Consider this;
Initiative going as normal... The party delays until after the enemy. Wizard delays to the end of the round and casts this spell.
The monster is pushed 30 feet away into a wall... and then charges back and takes one attack. All allies full attack him... and then the wizard pushes him away again. Oh, and since people think that provokes, it provokes from everyone in the front line when he does that. Twice, if they have reach weapons!
Or consider that the wizard could easily push an enemy spellcaster into melee. Since it's movement, it doesn't have to be a straight line. The party delays until after the wizard, and the wizard enemy hammers the bad guy say... into the floor. In the convenient open spot inbetween the other four melee members of the party! Oh, they pass their fort save, so they're not prone, but now everyone full attacks them and they can't cast since the fighter took disruptive and spellbreaker since the wizard can use this tactic against any and all spellcaster monsters.
The wizard can even, say... enemy hammer a target up to 840 feet away, and then constantly push them away with his standard action, preventing them from entering combat for 12+ rounds. Why not use a rod of extend metamagic and make it 24 rounds? And now everyone can unload on this target with ranged weapons, and they can at most gain 90 feet per round-- and go flatfooted. Oh, and if they fail a fort save, they go prone and don't gain any ground since they can't take a run action now...
The way people are reading this is incredibly broken. If they make the fort save, they aren't forcibly moved. Otherwise enemy hammer is the _ultimate_ single-target battlefield control spell.
EDIT: Another example: enemy hammer a dragon.
Force dragon up 15 feet. He drops 15 feet. He can make a fly check to negate the damage, that's fine, but he's still provoking from every member of the party with 2x the chances to go prone per round (if he fails his fort save, he goes prone. if he takes any damage from falling, he goes prone).
I would go as far to say that enemy hammer *cannot* lift targets up or slam targets down. That's just far too powerful.
Given that the same spell level has both disintegrate and flesh to stone, I can't really see how it's that overpowered.
The interpretation of this that I'm hearing basically boils down to "whether or not you pass your save, expect to be prone and losing all your actions for 10+ rounds". This can't be the case for a couple of reasons: First, while there are Save or Suck spells, there are very few (if any) Suck Whether or Not You Save spells. Second, Jason called out that he didn't find the spell to be particularly powerful, so I really doubt it's a complete lockdown spell for 10+ rounds.
I think you're misreading the alternative. The counter position is that you are moved and take damage regardless, but are only prone and without actions if you fail the save. So it's not really a lockdown spell under that reading - it is, however, a damage and battlefield control spell.
Given that the same spell level has both disintegrate and flesh to stone, I can't really see how it's that overpowered.
Disintegrate does damage on a touch attack. Flesh to stone is fort save or die that's reversible by low-level dispelling magic. Neither of these spells are a "Suck Whether or Not You Save" spells, and I would say that enemy hammer used in the way people are interpreting it is more potent than flesh to stone because you will always be able to push a creature 30 feet away for 12+ rounds every time you cast it whether or not the creature excels at fortitude saves or not, whereas flesh to stone only transforms a creature into stone on a failed fort save.
In addition to that, enemy hammer works on elementals, plants, constructs and incorporeal creatures, whereas flesh to stone doesn't.
First, a copy of the spell description so that I can reference it while posting :)
You grab a creature with telekinesis and use it to batter nearby opponents or objects. You must target a specific creature when casting this spell, and once you select that creature, you cannot switch to another. Each round, as a standard action, you can attempt to hurl the target at any creature or object within 30 feet of it. You must make an attack roll whenever you use the target as a weapon. The attack bonus for this attack is equal to your caster level plus either your Intelligence or Charisma modifier (whichever is higher). If you successfully hit the new target with the creature, both it and the creature take damage based on the creature's size (Fine 1d4, Diminutive 1d6, Tiny 1d8, Small 1d10, Medium 2d6, Large 2d8, Huge 2d10, Gargantuan 3d6, Colossal 3d8). The target creature can make a Fortitude saving throw each time you attempt to use it as a weapon. If it makes its saving throw, it can act normally, but if it fails its save, it loses all action for the round and ends its turn prone in a square adjacent to the target of your attack.
OK, I feel the partial save means that even if the target saves, the caster still has hold of them rather than the spell being broken. Unless something happens that causes the caster to drop the spell, the caster has a hold on the target til the spell expires. So if the target fails the save, the caster gets to batter them against a target within 30 feet of the target's current position, and if the target saves, they get to act normally and you cannot do anything to them even though they are not free of the spell.
I also do not like the use of the word "hurl" for how the target is used as a weapon, because it sounds like you are throwing the target rather than using them as a large club. But if you were throwing the target, then to me that would end the spell because you are releasing them.
I am trying to think of a scene from a movie that would be like this spell and the only one coming to mind right now is the fight between Gandalf and Saruman inside the White Tower. That fight could just be an example of telekinesis, but the way they magically grabbed each other and bashed each other into walls and floor and ceiling could fit this spell too.
I will cry if Aqueous Orb isn't on the druid spell list...
OK, I feel the partial save means that even if the target saves, the caster still has hold of them rather than the spell being broken. Unless something happens that causes the caster to drop the spell, the caster has a hold on the target til the spell expires. So if the target fails the save, the caster gets to batter them against a target within 30 feet of the target's current position, and if the target saves, they get to act normally and you cannot do anything to them even though they are not free of the spell.
I feel that's fairly correct. You can spend your standard action during the duration of the spell to try to attack someone with the target of the spell.
The only question I have is that it feels underpowered when you look at it for its actual usage-- standard action to cast and standard action to use means that your first round of enemy hammer is always used up with no results.
OK, I feel the partial save means that even if the target saves, the caster still has hold of them rather than the spell being broken. Unless something happens that causes the caster to drop the spell, the caster has a hold on the target til the spell expires. So if the target fails the save, the caster gets to batter them against a target within 30 feet of the target's current position, and if the target saves, they get to act normally and you cannot do anything to them even though they are not free of the spell.
I feel that's fairly correct. You can spend your standard action during the duration of the spell to try to attack someone with the target of the spell.
The only question I have is that it feels underpowered when you look at it for its actual usage-- standard action to cast and standard action to use means that your first round of enemy hammer is always used up with no results.
I agree except about the underpowered. The spells range is 400' plus 40' per level. That's 840' minimum. You could pick up some pesky archer 700'+ away, before he can play pin the arrow on the mage, and use him as a makeshift bludgeon/ ax on his friends or the nearest tree. For 11+ rounds. It's the duration that brings it into line with other 6th level spells. Over that duration hiting 1-2 targets each round piles up the damage (depending on the saves of course). And every round he takes damage and ends up prone he's not trying to damage you. Maybe not the most powerful 6th level spell, but not all that bad either.
I agree except about the underpowered. The spells range is 400' plus 40' per level. That's 840' minimum. You could pick up some pesky archer 700'+ away, before he can play pin the arrow on the mage, and use him as a makeshift bludgeon/ ax on his friends or the nearest tree. For 11+ rounds. It's the duration that brings it into line with other 6th level spells. Over that duration hiting 1-2 targets each round piles up the damage (depending on the saves of course). And every round he takes damage and ends up prone he's not trying to damage you. Maybe not the most powerful 6th level spell, but not all that bad either.
Verily, I agree with you to the utmost that this spell tis not be underpowered but is filled with it as salt is in the sea. Hehe sorry been watching Hamlet with David Tennant in it. That is indeed one hell of a range in fact I could say that it should be less. Gees in war this spell would be deadly because you would just need a couple of wizards who had this going, bowling down foes left in right. Heck it even says that it only takes a standard action to keep directing it. So imagine this you cast this spell at least twice and you could then spend the rest of the time flinging them around at enemies with a full action plus if you had heroic surge you would be able to use that for control of at least two rounds and be able to cast spells during those two rounds while fling.
This is a powerful spell.
With the combo suggested just above, Quicken Spell would add to the hurt!
Oh ya, didn't think about metamagic.
Could you maximize this spell? Would it make the collision damage maxed for the length of the spell?
I see could extend spell working very well for this. Be awesome for what you would know to be an extended fight.
Chain Spell? Cast the spell twice on two different targets the first round the second round have endless fun bouncing them around the place.
What about explosive spell? Would this make the collision of enemies send them flying all over the place?
What is this "Aqueous Orb" I've seen mentioned?
What is this "Aqueous Orb" I've seen mentioned?
I am guessing but I think it is a spell that only subscribers get to see from the APG. If I had to guess I would say that it is a water base spell that isn't about cold damage. Perhaps it is hard water? :)
The "Aqueous Orb" spell is the spell depicted on the second image in the preview post. If you click on it to enlarge it, the name "Aqueous Orb" shows up in the URL. As others have pointed out it appears to be a water-based attack spell that does not do cold damage, but either water damage or I am guessing bludgeoning damage, seeing how Pathfinder does not use water, earth, or air as damage types. But maybe the APG will introduce those as damage types.
|
I would almost agree that Enemy Hammer and any spell that might work along the same lines provokes if not for how AoO is written in the book, which I'm trying to figure out how anyone would come to any other conclusion. At the very start of the section explaining AoO it reads:
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.
The movement section of that area explains how that PC/NPC's wreckless actions provoke if it is due to movement. As written it is clear that the movement in question must be conducted by the target themselves in order to become a target of an AoO and not resulting from forced movement.
So other than throwing them through walls of fire and what not or against regular walls or floors, I don't see AoO being an effective way to gang up on someone.
What is this "Aqueous Orb" I've seen mentioned?
As Lord Zordran mentioned the URL caption of the picture with Seoni dousing the minotaur is "AqueousOrb" presumably a water based spell. The other pictures URL caption is "ShieldedCaster" presumably referring to the Paladin shielding the Oracle in that picture. A feat for fighter types to prevent casters from being interupted I would gather. Makes sense when you think about it.
What is this "Aqueous Orb" I've seen mentioned?I am guessing but I think it is a spell that only subscribers get to see from the APG. If I had to guess I would say that it is a water base spell that isn't about cold damage. Perhaps it is hard water? :)
Effect: Washes a dirty stinking monster, making combat much more pleasurable.