I think we ought to wait for a developer's answer.
I.E. I think this should be added to the spell description, if it works as the majority thinks it works:
If it makes its saving throw, the target of the spell is not thrown and 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.if it works otherwise, it should be errataed like this:
If it makes its saving throw, the target of the spell is thrown and ends it's movement standing in a square adjacent to the target of your attack, but can otherwise act normally , but if it fails its save, it also loses all action for the round and ends its turn prone in a square adjacent to the target of your attack.
I second this not only for what you mentioned above but also the whole OOA thing as well since that is in question as well.
I think we ought to wait for a developer's answer.
Good gods man! What would a preview thread be without endless, rampant, and wild speculation?!?!
In terms of getting the real answer you are right of course, but is that what we really want :D
It shouldn't need to be errata'd, it should have been play/beta tested before release and fixed. But now all we can do is hope they do not keep asserting that they don't need to errata anything and will fix their incredulously ambiguous spell.
shambles through thread
Good gods man! What would a preview thread be without endless, rampant, and wild speculation?!?!
This is why we can't have nice things! ;)
Lol, I bet Paizo is looking at this thread and thinking "we released just one spell, and they've already broken it in 5 ways."
Well, they do ask for feedback... Not saying that it is our duty to break it, but if there are holes, we will find them.
Well, they do ask for feedback... Not saying that it is our duty to break it, but if there are holes, we will find them.
Yea, I guess it is just too bad that if they decide that fixes are nessissary, they aren't going to make it into the Advanced Player's Guide. It will all be errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Enemy Hammer" was my spell (one of a couple of things I did to make it into the preview). I don't want to step on Jason's toes but I'll quickly drop in and say the intent when I wrote it was if you make your save nothing happens to you that round (act normally).
Hats off, some very creative people are coming up with some really cool ways to use this spell. :)
"Enemy Hammer" was my spell (one of a couple of things I did to make it into the preview). I don't want to step on Jason's toes but I'll quickly drop in and say the intent when I wrote it was if you make your save nothing happens to you that round (act normally).
Hats off, some very creative people are coming up with some really cool ways to use this spell. :)
It’s actually a nice spell, thanks!
But I think the problem with when you say ‘act normally’, people are arguing that even if you make your save, you can still be moved around (via the spell), you just don't take the damage, and then on your turn you still do your normal move and standard action. Although I am guessing you mean when you say ‘act normally’, it means nothing happens to you at all, no one can even move you around telekinetically with the spell.
|
Effect: Washes a dirty stinking monster, making combat much more pleasurable.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? :)
But that's what prestidigitation's for.
0th level spells - is there anything they can't do? ;)
I wouldn't expect the image names to match spell names; the name may be based on what the artist calls their turnover file, or what the art director calls it, or what we name it before sending it to the tech team.
"Enemy Hammer" was my spell (one of a couple of things I did to make it into the preview). I don't want to step on Jason's toes but I'll quickly drop in and say the intent when I wrote it was if you make your save nothing happens to you that round (act normally).
Hats off, some very creative people are coming up with some really cool ways to use this spell. :)
Cool, thanks for the clarification, and thanks for coming up with the spell. Lots of people are going to have fun with this one :D
"Enemy Hammer" was my spell (one of a couple of things I did to make it into the preview). I don't want to step on Jason's toes but I'll quickly drop in and say the intent when I wrote it was if you make your save nothing happens to you that round (act normally).
Hats off, some very creative people are coming up with some really cool ways to use this spell. :)
Thanks for your perspective. Unfortunately the phrase `act normally` in a crunch context tends to be interpreted specifically as not having any conditions which restrict actions (on their own turn usually, but potentially the ability to take an AoO, ready, speak, etc). Whether or not I was just telekinesed against the wall and slammed around doesn`t impede my actions (act normally) any more than a maximized empowered Fireball bringing me to 1 hp, or being Bullrushed off a 10 mile high cliff (I will be free-falling in mid-air for at least several rounds, with full range of actions available to me).
Anyhow, assuming your intent was the intent of the final editor(s), I assume the text will be Errata`d. In any case, it is interesting since it`s an example of a Save(Partial) spell that in fact has NO effect if the target passes (all of) their Saves (I`m assuming there is no other examples of such spells since there wasn`t any response when I asked for an example of one - then again there may be some non-Core spells that do work that way, that just haven`t been mentioned)
Also, how exactly was it justified to switch the Save from Telekinesis` Will to Enemy Hammer`s Fort Save?
I`m not really visualizing how they would function much differently, in-character.
Also, how exactly was it justified to switch the Save from Telekinesis` Will to Enemy Hammer`s Fort Save?
I`m not really visualizing how they would function much differently, in-character.
I am guessing that was done to make it more difficult to throw around the larger sized creatures as they do the most damage.
Although I agree, I would think it would be a Will save, as well.
I am guessing that was done to make it more difficult to throw around the larger sized creatures as they do the most damage.
They do a fairly small amount of damage. If you want to do real damage, you telekinetically throw greatswords at some one, or a single table.
|
They do a fairly small amount of damage. If you want to do real damage, you telekinetically throw greatswords at some one, or a single table.
I am guessing that was done to make it more difficult to throw around the larger sized creatures as they do the most damage.
The problem with telekinesis is wizards/ sorcerers have trouble hitting higher ACs their low BAB. Even a 20th level wizard is only going to have +18-20 on their attack rolls. Against the typical ACs in the mid-30s to 40+ that's not a very good tactic. Quickened true stike in the same round does the trick but that's 2 fifth level spells.
They do a fairly small amount of damage. If you want to do real damage, you telekinetically throw greatswords at some one, or a single table.
I am guessing that was done to make it more difficult to throw around the larger sized creatures as they do the most damage.
Nah you throw a house, hey it worked in the Wizard of Oz. :)
Still can't wait till Jason stops by and settles the whole OOA matter.
Extreme range coupled with Enlarge Spell allows for long range assassination attempts.
]
If you can "assassinate" some one with Enemy Hammer, you are wasting a 6th level spell.The spell does not take into account weight of the target.
Yes, it does. You can pick up ANYTHING Colossal size or smaller.
Attempting to hit anything requires a touch attack.
That is SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than the spell right now.
840' range? Almost SH&T combo.
A what?
With readied action (and properly elevated DC) you can target any one.
In other words, I am of the opinion, that sniping at leisure does not make for a heroic fantasy.
And what are you going to do? Bang people together until they die from the 2d6 damage a round they are taking?
Why not cast Fireball at the same range? Or Telekinesis? Or Freezing Sphere? Or Chain Lightning?
Extreme range coupled with Enlarge Spell allows for long range assassination attempts.]
If you can "assassinate" some one with Enemy Hammer, you are wasting a 6th level spell.840' range? Almost SH&T combo. With readied action (and properly elevated DC) you can target any one.
In other words, I am of the opinion, that sniping at leisure does not make for a heroic fantasy.
Good lord, you're making me defend Cartigan.
You're using a 7th level spell slot to deal a maximum of 3d8 damage per round to a target, with a save every round. If it's an actual assassination, it's going to deal more like 2d6, the damage for Medium targets. 2d6/round with a save every round is pitifully, pitifully low for a 7th level spell slot. Let's see what we can come up with for that same resource expenditure or lower: flaming sphere is 3d6/round for a 2nd level slot, acid arrow is 2d4/round for up to 6 rounds with no save for a 2nd level slot, scorching ray is 12d6 damage with no save for a 2nd level slot, explosive runes deals 6d6 damage at infinite range for a 3rd level slot, phantasmal killer outright kills the target for a 4th level slot, cloudkill kills the entire room for a 5th level slot, disintegrate deals up to 40d6 damage for a 6th level slot, etc etc.
Cartigan's point is that using a 7th level spell that does such low damage and is very, very obvious when it's active is useless for assassinating anything worth spending a 7th level spell slot on. Or, conversely, anything which can be usefully assassinated with enemy hammer could be more easily assassinated with a much, much lower level spell.
That's not to say the spell sucks or anything; I actually really like it. There's nothing quite like killing an enemy by beating him over the head with his friend. It's just not much of an assassination spell; it's much more useful as a battlefield control spell, since the real power is in the persistent knockdown.
Extreme range coupled with Enlarge Spell allows for long range assassination attempts.]
If you can "assassinate" some one with Enemy Hammer, you are wasting a 6th level spell.840' range? Almost SH&T combo. With readied action (and properly elevated DC) you can target any one.
In other words, I am of the opinion, that sniping at leisure does not make for a heroic fantasy.Good lord, you're making me defend Cartigan.
You're using a 7th level spell slot to deal a maximum of 3d8 damage per round to a target, with a save every round. If it's an actual assassination, it's going to deal more like 2d6, the damage for Medium targets. 2d6/round with a save every round is pitifully, pitifully low for a 7th level spell slot. Let's see what we can come up with for that same resource expenditure or lower: flaming sphere is 3d6/round for a 2nd level slot, acid arrow is 2d4/round for up to 6 rounds with no save for a 2nd level slot, scorching ray is 12d6 damage with no save for a 2nd level slot, explosive runes deals 6d6 damage at infinite range for a 3rd level slot, phantasmal killer outright kills the target for a 4th level slot, cloudkill kills the entire room for a 5th level slot, disintegrate deals up to 40d6 damage for a 6th level slot, etc etc.
Cartigan's point is that using a 7th level spell that does such low damage and is very, very obvious when it's active is useless for assassinating anything worth spending a 7th level spell slot on. Or, conversely, anything which can be usefully assassinated with enemy hammer could be more easily assassinated with a much, much lower level spell.
That's not to say the spell sucks or anything; I actually really like it. There's nothing quite like killing an enemy by beating him over the head with his friend. It's just not much of an assassination spell; it's much more useful as a battlefield control spell, since the real power...
I agree, this is more of a battlefield control spell. Although you could use it to assassinate but if I were to assassinate someone with this spell I wouldn't maximize the damage but I would extend the spell's duration or make it harder to resist with other feats. The reason why I say to set it up as a style means that you are setting your target up.
If you know exactly where you target will be you could set up hazards such as spike wall where the spikes are invisible. Grab your target and then repeatedly slam them into the spike wall. They constantly loose their action from either being impaled or the spell.
By it's self it is not the most efficient of assassination spells but with a little planning it can be as well as be done with style. It is also great if your target needs to be a message. It is a very nice message to send when your ally is beaten to death Brooklyn style with a spell.
Still Great spell. Now if we only we can get some Dev ruling on using OOA with this spell.
|
We don't really need a ruling. The spell doesn't say it grants AOO's, there is no mechanic in the game (that I am aware of anyway) for someone to make a Reflex Save (meant for Saving against things) in order to be able to make an attack, and it just doesn't make any sense to me. If it makes sense to you, go for it. There is no badwrongfun.
We don't really need a ruling. The spell doesn't say it grants AOO's, there is no mechanic in the game (that I am aware of anyway) for someone to make a Reflex Save (meant for Saving against things) in order to be able to make an attack, and it just doesn't make any sense to me. If it makes sense to you, go for it. There is no badwrongfun.
(SIGH), I made that as a suggestion because the target is moving fast but doesn't really say how fast, I only made that suggestion because it might be called into question. The reason we need a ruling is because there are people for it or against. The simple fact that the "ENEMY" is being forcefully moved through a player's threaten area should and automatically bring this into question whether or not it provokes an OOA. If a player who is running, even at 4 times his speed would still provoke every single threat area he goes across. Why should a spell should state everything that could ever be applied to it in a creative way. I will tell you why not because first that takes up space, second people should be able to think and be creative. RAW is fine but just because the RAW doesn't say something doesn't mean you cannot do it. Just the fact there are two parties who are either for it or against make it something would either be up to the GM or to the Dev who knows the rules better than anyone.
Heck, the original creator of the spell wasn't against any of the creative ways we were talking about using the spell and OOA was the most dominant. The only thing he set straight was about the partial save thing.
Read the rules on OOA and provoking someone's threat range and you will see what I mean.
Hold Monster is a much fairer comparison.
You can't seem to make up your mind; is your concern for the players using it against their enemies, or vice versa? You said your concern was for monsters using it against the players, in which case hold person would be a better comparison, and hold person wins for being 5 full spell levels lower (and the fact that you only have to make a guy helpless for one round to kill him).
They also don't use up your standard action every single round and take effect immediately, rather than the round after casting.
This spell is particularly good at removing spellcaster from combat.So is disintegrate, which tends to remove arcane spellcasters permanently and is actually easier to do so with (requiring a single action, a ranged touch attack, and a failed fortitude save, rather than continuous standard actions, continuous normal attacks, and continuous failed saves). For that matter, a simple sleet storm will remove most arcane spellcasters from consideration.
It's just that at the distance it can be employed, it makes it really hard to support party wizards if they get hit with it.Dispel magic. Done. You can even have the arcane spellcaster himself do the dispelling, since the spell is cast and is targetted (and thus present) on the spellcaster the round before anything happens to him.
|
|
(SIGH)
Whoa there! My point was, you have fun your way and I'll have it my way, isn't it cool that we can do that without needing arbitration?
Heck, the original creator of the spell wasn't against any of the creative ways we were talking about using the spell and OOA was the most dominant. The only thing he set straight was about the partial save thing.
Right, and that's all well and good. I'm not in any way against you ruling on it however you see fit at your table. I'm just stating how I'm ruling it at mine, and giving my reasons.
Read the rules on OOA and provoking someone's threat range and you will see what I mean.
Well, not only have I read those rules many, many times before, but I actually spent the last half hour of my work day re-reading them because this discussion was taking place, just to make sure I wasn't missing anything that would cause me to change my mind. Here's what I concluded you and I differ on:
In the "Actions in Combat" table that describes actions and whether or not they provoke AoO's, "Move" is defined as an action that provokes. To me, this means that on my turn, if I choose to move out of a threatened square (using my Move action to choose to Move), I provoke.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it seems like to you that implies that any time anyone moves out of a threatened square for any reason (chosen or forced movement), an AoO is provoked. I'm guessing that you're treating Greater Bull Rush as an exception to this, since you need to burn an extra two feats to cause the target of a Bull Rush to provoke when they leave their square (forced movement). If I'm misstating your position, I apologize in advance, and please do correct me in whatever way I've misrepresented you.
"Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of
actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out
of a threatened square and performing certain actions
within a threatened square.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually
provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening
opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding
such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action."
(part about performing a distracting Act omitted)
"Remember that even actions that normally provoke
attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule."
My reasoning (you are welcome to take or leave my reasoning) is as follows: It says "Two kinds of actions can provoke...", which leads me to conclude that these are actions that a player or creature can take on their turn which provoke. I would posit that being flung about by no choice of your own on someone else's turn is not an action that you take, therefore it doesn't fit the "moving out of a threatened square" scenario.
Please, try to look beyond meager damage. Hold Monster is a much fairer comparison. Now replace Will with Fortitude partial, improve duration (does not expire upon successful save), add damage, improve range (long as opposed to HM's medium) and finally allow for active combat application.
Fireball, Chain Lightning, Freezing Sphere, Telekinesis.
EDIT: There are too many variables to make Enemy Hammer a reliable control spell.
Wow, all the "fun" arguments about this spell. I look at it this way, it is a character concept spell or a spell you can have fun with, not a munchkin spell or a spell that will nuke the opposition from orbit.
(SIGH)Whoa there! My point was, you have fun your way and I'll have it my way, isn't it cool that we can do that without needing arbitration?
Heck, the original creator of the spell wasn't against any of the creative ways we were talking about using the spell and OOA was the most dominant. The only thing he set straight was about the partial save thing.Right, and that's all well and good. I'm not in any way against you ruling on it however you see fit at your table. I'm just stating how I'm ruling it at mine, and giving my reasons.
Read the rules on OOA and provoking someone's threat range and you will see what I mean.Well, not only have I read those rules many, many times before, but I actually spent the last half hour of my work day re-reading them because this discussion was taking place, just to make sure I wasn't missing anything that would cause me to change my mind. Here's what I concluded you and I differ on:
In the "Actions in Combat" table that describes actions and whether or not they provoke AoO's, "Move" is defined as an action that provokes. To me, this means that on my turn, if I choose to move out of a threatened square (using my Move action to choose to Move), I provoke.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it seems like to you that implies that any time anyone moves out of a threatened square for any reason (chosen or forced movement), an AoO is provoked. I'm guessing that you're treating Greater Bull Rush as an exception to this, since you need to burn an extra two feats to cause the target of a Bull Rush to provoke when they leave their square (forced movement). If I'm misstating your position, I apologize in advance, and please do correct me in whatever way I've misrepresented you.
** spoiler omitted **...
Sorry if I got a little defensive there and if I sounded to aggressive or uncivil that I am sorry for that as well. In regards to your last paragraph, I do think an OOA can happen when it is not the victim's turn. In addition the only reason I was arguing about Bull Rush because someone else I forget who on this thread was using that as a defense against my argument, which really was a weak argument and I was merely pointing that out, it was not my main argument but my counter arguement. Now as far as why I think that an OOA can happen to someone, even when it is not their turn, it will be explain with the following scenario.
Lets say that you are on a sailing ship during a storm in a combat on the main deck. The deck suddenly rock violently to starboard the side you are on. You manage to maintain your balance against the railing but an enemy on other side of the ship did not keep his balance. This enemy ends up sliding past you (movement)and slides right past your feet. Before this you have manage to keep your sword arm free.
Now tell me if this was you in real life, would you take advantage of that or would you do nothing because you thought it couldn't be done. Personally I would take advantage of that.
Now, that scenario aside, I too was going through the rules because I wanted to make sure that everything was legal and I never found anything that said that a OOA made against a foe had to happen on that foe's turn. OOAs are made out of turn anyways so these even suggests that an OOA can happen at any time.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of
actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out
of a threatened square and performing certain actions
within a threatened square.Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually
provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening
opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding
such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed
in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as
you divert your attention from the battle. Table 8–2 notes
many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
Remember that even actions that normally provoke
attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule.
This seemed like the best spot but I was looking though other sections as well. The way I read it as long at the foe enters and then leaves the threatened area then this provokes. The only exception to this is if that threatening character already made a OOA that round, the opponent left that threaten area with only a 5 foot step, or does a withdraw. In addition being forcefully moved is pretty distracting because odds are you are not just going to go limp, you will be busy being trying not to be moved forcefully, that is also where I think the save (for this spell) in this matter or in the example of the ship using acrobatics to try and maintain your balance or using reflex saves to maintain such balance.
Interesting thing though I am glad we had this argument because it has forced me to be clearer on the subject of OOA. Lastly, if you can quote where it says specifically in the core rules, in another thread or in another supplement (other than 3.X) then I will concede the argument to you and with an apology.
Lastly I am in agreement with you that until the can quote or when we can get a Dev down here to rule on this, that we can agree to disagree and we run things different at our tables.
|
|
I can't cite any rule that says that non-actions on the part of a combatant don't provoke AoO's, nothing exists that says that. The only thing that exists is a statement that actions on the part of a combatant can provoke AoO's, which is sort of the inverse of what you're looking for. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
@Enevhar, I agree with you, man, and I don't like arguing at all. Just trying to throw some reasoning into the mix.
Looking forward to next week's preview!
I can't cite any rule that says that non-actions on the part of a combatant don't provoke AoO's, nothing exists that says that. The only thing that exists is a statement that actions on the part of a combatant can provoke AoO's, which is sort of the inverse of what you're looking for. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
@Enevhar, I agree with you, man, and I don't like arguing at all. Just trying to throw some reasoning into the mix.
Looking forward to next week's preview!
Looks like we are arguing for the same reasons then, the reasoning that is, but just simply taking the different sides of the argument.
Well maybe a we will have a Dev pop in soon and can settle this, but I am with you I too am fine with with agreeing to disagree.
2) Weapon Blanch is a great way to get rid of the golf-bag syndrome
No, not really.
"The blanching remains effective until the weapon makes a successful attack."This seem to indicate the effective expire one you hit the target.
This is probably a great way to boost archers even more...as if they need it.
5) Extra powers as a Feat are just great
Perhaps, perhaps not.
The feat probably works the same way as Extra Mercy'Select one additional rage power for which you qualify.'
This doesn't really help the Barbarian unless the APG give the Barbarian feats that let the Barbarian combine range powers and/or extend rage powers and/or improve existing rage powers.
combine range powers - you may combine stuff like Powerful Blow and Surprise Accuracy
extended rage powers - power like Powerful Blow and Surprise Accuracy last the whole rage or one round (or one turn).
I also hope for feats or rage powers that improve existing rage powers.
Now Powerful Blow and Surprise Accuracy more or less suck.
2) Weapon Blanch is a great way to get rid of the golf-bag syndrome
No, not really.
"The blanching remains effective until the weapon makes a successful attack."
This seem to indicate the effective expire one you hit the target.
This is probably a great way to boost archers even more...as if they need it.
5) Extra powers as a Feat are just greatPerhaps, perhaps not.
The feat probably works the same way as Extra Mercy
'Select one additional rage power for which you qualify.'
This doesn't really help the Barbarian unless the APG give the Barbarian feats that let the Barbarian combine range powers and/or extend rage powers and/or improve existing rage powers.
combine range powers - you may combine stuff like Powerful Blow and Surprise Accuracy
extended rage powers - power like Powerful Blow and Surprise Accuracy last the whole rage or one round (or one turn).
I also hope for feats or rage powers that improve existing rage powers.
Now Powerful Blow and Surprise Accuracy more or less suck.
I agree about the blanching. On a melee weapon it is rather useless past that first application, I would probably rule however that you could get more uses out of it then you could for arrows and other ammo. On arrows this is very effective because you can do 10 per arrows per dose. Applying it on a weapon is something you cannot do in combat because you need to literally bake the stuff on. Still it is a great idea and if they don't change it then I will modify it for my own game.
You're thinking in terms of 10x10 rooms and 10' wide corridors, aren't you?
Again, this spell effectiveness comes into play during sniping attempts (which makes first round irrelevant).
How?
How?
You're thinking in terms of 10x10 rooms and 10' wide corridors, aren't you?
Again, this spell effectiveness comes into play during sniping attempts (which makes first round irrelevant).
Wizard flying 1,640 feet above his target. Technically does not need line of sight but line of effect. So, he casts this spell and jerks the wizard off a cliff.
Wizard flying 1,640 feet across a city. King walks on the balcony. Grab the king, slam him into his friends for 12 rounds, nobody knows who did it and the only way to stop it is to dispel it. Hopefully the king doesn't die, or any of his party guests, for that matter... and hopefully the guy they call in to resurrect him doesn't stand with his back to an open window.
Meanwhile there is no way to detect you, especially if you have access to a gnome illusionist hanging out in your bag of holding with a bottle of air who can cloak you up as a cloud or a chimney.
|
|
How?
You're thinking in terms of 10x10 rooms and 10' wide corridors, aren't you?
Again, this spell effectiveness comes into play during sniping attempts (which makes first round irrelevant).Wizard flying 1,640 feet above his target. Technically does not need line of sight but line of effect. So, he casts this spell and jerks the wizard off a cliff.
Wizard flying 1,640 feet across a city. King walks on the balcony. Grab the king, slam him into his friends for 12 rounds, nobody knows who did it and the only way to stop it is to dispel it. Hopefully the king doesn't die, or any of his party guests, for that matter... and hopefully the guy they call in to resurrect him doesn't stand with his back to an open window.
Meanwhile there is no way to detect you, especially if you have access to a gnome illusionist hanging out in your bag of holding with a bottle of air who can cloak you up as a cloud or a chimney.
I think people would notice a chimney 1,640ft in the air...
|
Switching to fantasy genre now. Enemy Hammer. The opponent is to be found somewhere within a half of a sphere of 1640' diameter. This is 7.444.362,24 cubes (each being 5'x5'x5') to search through. Oh, and DC for this Perception check is increased by +1 per 10'.
How does the opponent make the DC 164 Perception check to target the spell?
Wizard flying 1,640 feet above his target. Technically does not need line of sight but line of effect. So, he casts this spell and jerks the wizard off a cliff.How?
You're thinking in terms of 10x10 rooms and 10' wide corridors, aren't you?
Again, this spell effectiveness comes into play during sniping attempts (which makes first round irrelevant).
No. For one thing, you make an attack when you use the spell; attacks explicitly require line of sight. For two, you can't hurl anyone off a cliff with enemy hammer because you have to attack a creature or object, and open space is neither.
Wizard flying 1,640 feet across a city. King walks on the balcony. Grab the king, slam him into his friends for 12 rounds, nobody knows who did it and the only way to stop it is to dispel it.
No. You can also break either line of sight or line of effect. In other words, drag him back into the palace off of the balcony.
If you had read my initial post, you'd had found the answer to your question. I'll save your time and explain again: The spell is particularly effective against canonical four as it eliminates with great likelihood arcane spellcaster from long distance, effectively preventing (due to range) the nonspellcasters of canonical four from saving their comrade.
Now, whether the particular canonical four is composed of PCs or NPCs, is of no issue here, though (as I have emphasized in further post) when employed against PCs, it would cause a lot more problems.Hold Person assumes the target is a humanoid. Canonical four does not need to be composed of humanoids. Also, Hold Person is much easier to deal with.
You're contradicting yourself, here, because you've explicitly stated that you do not really think it's too good for PCs using against NPCs, only vice versa:
Again, this is not a problem, if the spell is used by PCs... however, if properly employed against them, it will result in removal of a spellcaster at a range excluding Canonical fighter and rogue from making a difference.
So no, I'm sorry, hold monster is not the appropriate spell to compare it to. Hold person is. And hold person is very nearly as effective and FOUR FULL SPELL LEVELS LOWER.
You're thinking in terms of 10x10 rooms and 10' wide corridors, aren't you?
Well, apparantly you're thinking of Glass Marble World, where there's no terrain to block line of sight or line of effect and every spell can be easily cast at its maximum range. Given that the name of the game is Dungeons and Dragons, I think mine is a safer way of thinking.
Again, this spell effectiveness comes into play during sniping attempts (which makes first round irrelevant).
No, it doesn't make the first round irrelevant. Anyone can make a Spellcraft check to notice a spell being cast or a spell already in effect. That means the party has a whole round to remove the spell by any number of means. And by the way, no, the "canonical party" has two characters who can dispel -- the mage and the priest. Dispel magic is on every 2/3 or full caster's spell list for a reason, and I fully expect any party that has 7th level spells being cast on them to have several dispel magic and greater dispel magic spells memorized on every party member who can cast them. Anything else is stupid.
Readied action: "I will hurl the victim as soon as anyone attempts to support or target victim".
Brilliant! So, in effect, if no one does anything, neither do you. Absolutely awe-inspiring overpoweredness, there. Also, you can't ready an action that vague in any game I've ever played.
And then either hurl at nearby friendly sphere of annihilation (I know, it's an extreme example, but it is meant to illustrate possible risk)
Are you sure you're not intentionally parodying yourself? So you need two game-breaking greater artifacts (the sphere and its talisman) in order to make a 6th level spell overpowered? Hate to break it to you, but a sphere of annihilation breaks the game all by itself. You don't need to add a 6th level spell to the mix to do that.
The AoOs talked about are another good example of abusing this spell - the sniper waits for the party to meet opposition, and then uses the spell to parade spellcaster before melee attackers.
Doesn't work. Forced movement never provokes unless there's something more specific that says otherwise (for example, Greater Bull Rush).
How?
You're thinking in terms of 10x10 rooms and 10' wide corridors, aren't you?
Again, this spell effectiveness comes into play during sniping attempts (which makes first round irrelevant).Wizard flying 1,640 feet above his target. Technically does not need line of sight but line of effect. So, he casts this spell and jerks the wizard off a cliff.
Wizard flying 1,640 feet across a city. King walks on the balcony. Grab the king, slam him into his friends for 12 rounds, nobody knows who did it and the only way to stop it is to dispel it. Hopefully the king doesn't die, or any of his party guests, for that matter... and hopefully the guy they call in to resurrect him doesn't stand with his back to an open window.
Meanwhile there is no way to detect you, especially if you have access to a gnome illusionist hanging out in your bag of holding with a bottle of air who can cloak you up as a cloud or a chimney.
If the king's court wizard can't manage dispel magic he's overpaid. The theoretical court wizard is probably as high or higher level than the PC... there are way too many reasons for this type of thing to not work on a high level / important NPC. I tend to figure the king, with vast resources can pretty much count on any magic item he needs short of an artifact as well. It would probably work on some typical schmuck, but they usually don't have enemies who can toss off 6th level spells for a chuckle. It might work in the field. It's not, however, going to put the Assassin's Guild out of work.
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.
Ice Titan, I could be wrong (and someone else might have already posted what I'm going to) but AFAIK Flesh to Stone can't be 'reversed' with Dispel Magic (you're no longer 'magical' in nature/aura, you are a statue/unliving stone). I think spells like Break Enchantment or Stone to Flesh are what's required to 'cure' you of being a pigeon roost. :P
Dean; The_Minstrel_Wyrm