Cruel Kindness's page

79 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Sorry for performing thread necromancy, but I'm curious if this issue ever got clarified. I tried searching the forum but the only threads that came back were from 2013 or earlier and, I figured, instead of making another new thread, I'd recycle my old thread.

Can someone provide a link if this has been covered? If not, feel free to click the FAQ button up top or chime in with your own opinion on RAI/RAW.


Anyone else want to chime in? Agree/disagree with what's being said here?

I encourage polite debate (and hopefully FAQ clicks).


No, the weapon allows you to make trip attempts as a Combat Maneuver.


Power is relative and all a matter of perspective.


Oh man, the flavor there is nice. I can see it clearly. Frogmagus just dumping Shocking Grasp through the net while he holds his opponent helpless inside of it.

Barbecue anyone?


This is the conclusion I had been quietly coming to, but even that doesn't really mesh well with how Target spells work. In fact, that's exactly how most Area spells
work...

Unless, the Target refers, in this case, to objects instead of people and the object is the ground.


This thread has gotten so far off topic and contains such vitrol it's not even worth continuing. New thread is here for anyone still interested in getting this answered via FAQ or just polite debate over the topic.


Psyren wrote:
Cruel Kindness wrote:
But that's not how Target spells work, really. If the target is hidden, its not a valid Target. Unless the spell itself chooses targets, but then shouldn't it still be an Area spell?
It does have an area - a 40ft. spread.

It has an area, but is not an Area spell. It's a Target spell, hence the confusion. Back in 3.X, it was a proper Area spell, but Pazio changed it to what we see in the PRD.


Psyren wrote:
Cruel Kindness wrote:
To further complicate things, the spell is a Spread effect which contradict the mechanics for how a targeted spell normally works. What's the point of the spell reaching around blind corners if you have to select targets for the spell?

That's easy - so you can catch the target's friends. You wail the one guy you can see, and all his friends hiding around the corner get hit too.

Or target yourself - you're unaffected, but it will spread out 40ft. from you and zap everyone hiding near by unless they have total cover.

But that's not how Target spells work, really. If the target is hidden, its not a valid Target. Unless the spell itself chooses targets, but then shouldn't it still be an Area spell?

I've seen both sides of the argument come to a stalemate without any clear, concise answer forming out of the debate.

Again, I encourage anyone reading this to click FAQ while we (politely) debate this in the mean time.


*Chuckle*

What I really want Is to understand how the spell is intended to work. Whether that means errata, FAQ, or just a Dev posting their team's intent is irrelevant to me. As long as it's clear and understandable, I'll be happy.


DM_Blake wrote:

Technically, it could spread around a blind corner but you could still see the enemies there if you were scrying, for example. Or using mirrors. It's one of the benefits of spreads vs. bursts.

Me, I don't like the idea that you must see an enemy to affect it with sound. If he's hiding behind a tree and I make the area of effect right next to him, how is it that my sound (Banshee's WAIL) cannot affect him because I cannot see him from where I stand.

I would Houserule this as being a purely spread area with no targets. But that's not the current RAW.

My feelings are exactly the same, hence this thread asking for FAQ clicks. I don't know of any other spells that add wording to allow such specific circumstances (mirrors, Xray Vision ring, etc.). As for scrying, wouldn't the caster be too preoccupied by the scrying to even cast the spell? The wording in WotB is a bit unclear and possibly contradictory.


To further complicate things, the spell is a Spread effect which contradict the mechanics for how a targeted spell normally works. What's the point of the spell reaching around blind corners if you have to select targets for the spell?

Is it possible the Area to Target change was unintentional? If not, why not edit out the bit about the order of affect and remove the Spread effect? If it was unintentional, how has this gone unnoticed for so long?


11 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

In a nutshell: The spell was changed from 3.X from an Area spell to a Target spell. The last line of text seems to override the normal targeting process, making it act more like an Area spell.

PRD:
School necromancy [death, sonic]; Level sorcerer/wizard 9

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Target one living creature/level within a 40-ft.-radius spread

Duration instantaneous

Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes

When you cast this spell, you emit a terrible, soul-chilling scream that possibly kills creatures that hear it (except for yourself). The spell affects up to one creature per caster level, inflicting 10 points of damage per caster level. Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first.

My question is this: What did that change actually do to make the spell different, if at all? Should we treat the spell as a Targeted spell (caster selects targets) or does the spell select it's own targets based on distance from the point of origin?

Feel free to post your own opinions, especially if you're on the Pazio staff. Would love to hear from someone with inside knowledge.

If not, hopefully we can get enough FAQ clicks to get a developer response.


DGL, you've already made it clear that you think rather lowly the Pazio staff. Besides, if you really wanted an answer you'd just repost the question...

Maybe you should check out World of Darkness.


DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:

Cruel Kindness is right about the grammar and effect/affect.

Aside from that, it is completely and utterly off-topic, so let's return to the discussion at hand. Unless, of course, there is nothing left to discuss. In that case, mark it for FAQ and hope for the best. If they don't answer, we can assume that you pick targets and it does 10/level/target.

Except to assume such is a fallacy, as I continue to point out. Also, I'd mark it for FAQ material at this point just to settle the debate, but the first post is virtually a wall of text. FAQ candidates need to be concise and easy to read. Maybe post a new thread with a question such as "What effect does Wail of the Banshee's change from an Area spell to a Target spell have? Can we select targets (as a Targeted spell), or can we only select the Point of Origin (as an Area spell)?" Not the best wording, I admit... but hopefully you get the idea.

CruelKindness wrote:
My main argument for Wail of the Banshee's Target line being overridden by it's text and wording, is because of it's text and wording. Historically, SPECIFIC rules override GENERAL rules (see how we're back at this argument again?). In this case, WotB has a SPECIFIC clause that tells you which Targets are affected first. This overrides the GENERAL rule of how Targeted spells work. Going by your interpretation of WotB, the last line of text has no meaning or can only be used in specific cases such as Contingency; nowhere else do spells get worded to make exceptions for such special scenarios.


Ilja wrote:

I know the difference between affect and effect. "To have an influence on or effect a change in". If using this definition, it is VERY valid to say that a spell that was saved against and thus did not "effect a change in" the character, did not affect the character.

I'm not saying it's the only possible interpretation, but it IS a valid definition of the word and a valid interpretation. I think it's more likely that the spell is supposed to target only enemies and that the lack of an "up to" on the target line is an error, but as written, this interpretation would as I see it be the only one that did not make any words in the spell strictly superfluous and did not break any rules.

Any other interpretation would make it have either completely unnecessary words or break the rules on target spells.

And for baleful polymorph, it'd be pointless to have a mystic ability that both made the spell harder to resist and made it impossible to resist. Why make it harder to begin with then? If everyone is fully affected by the spell, then the line stating the partial effect would be pointless. Also check the witch's nightmare hex - it would basically be a will negates ability where the effect still happens even if they save.

And there are other examples. One of your main arguments for the target spell WotB not being a target spell has been that some wording would have marginal/no meaning as a target spell - are you really saying that all these other spells and abilities have loads and loads of unnecessary wording just for teh lulz or something, just so your specific definition of "affect" should rain supreme over the other ones in the dictionary?

What....? No, seriously, are you even reading? If a spell forces a creature to make a saving throw, the spell is interacting with the creature. Any other "interpretation" is simply wrong.

Augmented Baleful Polymorph wrote:

The saving throw changes to Fortitude (partial) and Will (partial). A creature that fails the Fortitude save automatically fails the Will save. A target with the shapechanger subtype that fails its save can't use its shapechanging to shift out of its new form. A creature that succeeds at the Fortitude save is partially transformed into the intended animal. For 1 minute per level, 84 it takes on cosmetic features appropriate to that animal and becomes one size category closer to the animal's size.

Augmented (9th): If you expend four uses of mythic power, the spell affects all other creatures with 8 Hit Dice or fewer in a 1-mile radius.

Affected creatures transform into Small or smaller animals appropriate to the local environment. You can select a number of creatures up to your tier to not be affected.

Emphasis mine. The ability you're referencing SPECIFICALLY DOES have an effect on creatures EVEN IF THEY MAKE THEIR SAVING THROW. Thus, creatures you use this augmented spell on will suffer partial effects EVEN IF THEY MAKE THEIR SAVE.

As for the Witch's Nightmare hex, you're wrong yet again (or are we still calling being wrong lying?). According to RAW, Nightmare AFFECTS a creature without any saving throw. Only once they try to go to sleep do the hex's effects become apparent, as per the Nightmare Spell which has no effect on creatures until they try to sleep. Once the creature tries to sleep, they'd need to make a saving throw to avoid it's effects.

My main argument for Wail of the Banshee's Target line being overridden by it's text and wording, is because of it's text and wording. Historically, SPECIFIC rules override GENERAL rules (see how we're back at this argument again?). In this case, WotB has a SPECIFIC clause that tells you which Targets are affected first. This overrides the GENERAL rule of how Targeted spells work. Going by your interpretation of WotB, the last line of text has no meaning or can only be used in specific cases such as Contingency; nowhere else do spells get worded to make exceptions for such special scenarios.

The longer I debate this with you, the more I'm starting to think you're just trolling...

fretgot99 wrote:
Well, we've gotten to grammar. Now all we need is for someone to liken somebody else to Hitler and I think we've exhausted the gamut of outcomes for internet-based arguments.

Thanks for the contribution. Your input was really insightful and totally on topic....

/sarcasm


Actually, no. I'm not going to let that one go....

This is a a discussion on the Rules As Written. By the Rules As Written, that is EXACTLY what that means. Don't believe me? Look up the definition of Affect and compare it to the definition of Effect. Then re-read the Augmented Baleful Polymorph.

According to RAW, any creature AFFECTED by the Augmented Baleful Polymorph is subject to the spell's EFFECT. And why not? It's a Mythic spell, after all.

Besides, actually reading the description... "A creature that succeeds at the Fortitude save is partially transformed into the intended animal." So, yes, my point is still valid here.

Ilja wrote:
Not necessarily - if I have to target 17 creatures, and 12 of them make their saves, the spell have targeted 17 creatures but only affected 5 creatures (since it has save negates). This is kind of open to interpretation.

If you target 17 creatures and 12 of them make their save, all 17 are AFFECTED by the spell but only 5 suffer the EFFECTS. There is no "interpreting" the English language, nor is it up for debate.


Ilja wrote:
Cruel Kindness wrote:
Actually, this is a problem with the English language. Affect and Effect do not mean the same thing. To affect (a verb) something means to interact with it , even if that interaction is forcing a saving throw. Effect (a noun) is what it does.

It depends on interpretation. But with that interpretation, augmented baleful polymorph turns any target - even if it makes all saves - into small or smaller animals. Just as an example.

Affect is used kind of loosely in descriptions and is not a word with a defined single meaning in pathfinder.

Right....

So now I don't even know the difference between a Verb and a Noun. Clearly, I need to stop speaking the English Language.

/thread


Ilja wrote:

Flare Burst is an effect spell. It does not have a target line. Claiming it has is a lie.

Color Spray, Fire Breath and Burning Hands are area spells. It does not have a target line. Claiming they have are is a lie.

Ok, ok, I blame this site and a lack of fact checking on my part... can't trust websites these days...

Yanno what, frag it. I'm clearly wrong in EVERYTHING I fraggin post in this thread and you fraggers are WAY too fast to point this out.

This isn't even Rules Discussion anymore. It's just finger pointing. I'm done. I'm out. I don't even fragging care anymore.

I'm telling my GM that I'm re-rolling as a Fighter. I clearly don't understand how magic works since Pathfinder changed so much from 3.X.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
Not necessarily - if I have to target 17 creatures, and 12 of them make their saves, the spell have targeted 17 creatures but only affected 5 creatures (since it has save negates). This is kind of open to interpretation.

Actually, this is a problem with the English language. Affect and Effect do not mean the same thing. To affect (a verb) something means to interact with it , even if that interaction is forcing a saving throw. Effect (a noun) is what it does.


Well, I guess I must be completely wrong in the way I interpret RAW.

The Pathfinder team must be complete morons (or blind) since they didn't realize the last line of text had any effect on the spell mechanics at all. Now, that line is just a fanciful bit of "left-over" from the 3.X "Area" casting of the spell and can be ignored completely.

Don't worry about hitting your friends, you can SELECT who gets hit!
Don't worry about targets around a corner, Spread spells don't work the same anymore!

Similarly, we don't have to worry about blinding allies with the Flare Burst spell since it's Targeted. Color Spray, Fire Breath, Burning Hands, Web, Cloudkill, Fire Snake, Shout & Greater, Crushing Despair, Ice Storm, and Rainbow Pattern are all completely safe to use in a "Danger Close" scenario since they're all Target spells and will NEVER hit an ally unless the caster CHOOSES to (just to name a few).

Actually, Rainbow Pattern is a great comparison to WotB. They're both Target spells with a Spread. They both affect from closest to Point of Origin first. They both have an upper limit on number of creatures affected. Not sure where I'm going with that...


Because you Target the Point of Origin, perhaps? Maybe because creatures are still getting Targeted, but being Targeted by the spell's effect rather than by the caster directly?

And, yes, the amount of affected creatures IS voluntary. "The spell affects up to one creature per caster level". And even then, you can always cast at a lower Caster Level to limit the number of potential creatures affected.


*Sigh*

If the spell allowed you to choose targets, it wouldn't say "creature", it would say "enemies" because you'd never choose a friendly target.

Since the spell says "creature", it's implied that the spell will target anything in the radius until the max creatures/lvl is reached, in order from closest to the Origin.

Citing corner cases in which this or that COULD be useful isn't how 3.X/PF writes their rules, as I pointed out before.

Show me a spell or ability that has similarly worded corner cases written into it like you're suggesting they've done with WotB.


Okay then, why does the spell say "one living creature" instead of enemies?


DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:
Cruel Kindness wrote:

It's a consensus as long as we all agree that's it's Targeted only in name. The only real target we get to pick is the Point of Origin.

Still feels weird to me, though. It's been a (you are the origin) spell in all of my groups so far.

I think you're the only one left who thinks that.

Okay then, if you get to choose which targets are affected, why does it say "Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first"? There are only two interpretations of RAW that this line isn't completely useless.

1) The spell only does 100 HP/level total.
-or-
2) You only get to choose the origin.


It's a consensus as long as we all agree that's it's Targeted only in name. The only real target we get to pick is the Point of Origin.

Still feels weird to me, though. It's been a (you are the origin) spell in all of my groups so far.


Dotting.


Well, it seems I've been wrong this whole time; silly me. TBH, I wasn't aware there were spells that stated the spell is "centered on you", such as Screech. That particular spell is an Area spell instead of targeted, but the verbiage for WotB does seem to support the claim that the point of origin is selected somewhere within the spell's Range. Counter intuitive and against common sense, but I find nothing in the RAW besides those two words: "you emit" which is admittedly weak in the light of evidence to the contrary.


Are there any other spells, feats, or abilities that similarly add awkward wording for the explicit purpose of allowing corner cases? It was my understanding that PF and 3.X wrote rules that made known what they do differently by telling you what you can do. It's not up to each spell to say "you can do this, but only if you can do this also".

Also, why would Pazio change part of the spell without looking at how that change would interact with how the rest of the spell functioned? To argue that leaving the final line of text in the description is an oversight is insulting at best.

Hangar, the reason Ilja is able to poke holes in your argument is because, as I continue to persist, you do not get to choose the origin of the spread. The caster is the origin. The targets are what the spell itself chooses, based on it's text. This is supported by the verbiage in how many creatures can be affected as opposed to how many opponents can be affected.

Perhaps I was too hasty in assuming the spell doesn't apply the same damage to all targets, though. It does make sense for a ninth level spell to be able to virtually nuke everything around the caster and a 40' spread is big enough to cover more than 20 creatures potentially. It doesn't make sense to originate at any distance greater than zero. Not only does it defy common sense, it doesn't fit with the descriptive text.


Darkflame wrote:
trait rich parents just gets you 900 starting gold not 1200

Get The Cargo Through (Regional) adds 300 to your starting wealth. 900 (Parents) + 300 (Cargo) = 1200


Kyoni wrote:
you might want to read this

Yeah, I skimmed through it until I saw the Defiler. Tried to read it over, then realized it was broken as heck. Unless it's been updated in the past two weeks, it's still broken and doesn't take into account the most recent FAQ on Spell Combat among other inconsistencies. Also, all three builds are just variations on the Shocking Grasp and Frostbite combos that are already well known. Heck, the last build called The Melee Transmorgifist takes advantage of both.

I probably should have mentioned in the first post that I'm trying to avoid those two clichés.

Also, the original thread that spawned this Advice thread is found here. After work today, I'm going to try and put together a build based from Sunburn's suggestions. I'll post the results here and see what you guys think.


Thank you for the reply! The build looks pretty good, and I see mainly what you're building towards. Lots of hexes to dominate melee. I do have a few questions though.

I had been assuming that using a low crit weapon negated the major benefit of Shocking Grasp shenanigans. Is this a false impression? And is Imp. Crit. really worth it, or is it just for the SG combo?

I have also seen a number of people claim that Cackle (and related hexes) were a waste of action economy for a Magus. Does the most recent FAQ on Spell Combat interact with this at all?

The rest of the build some really solid and fairly rounded. Some Power Attack to make the non Spell Combat rounds count and some Metamagics to make spellcasting more functional.


If you can choose the targets, why does the target's distance from the origin matter? Clearly, you cannot choose more targets than the spell allows, even if they're in the area.

If the spell does the same damage to all creatures, and you choose which creatures take the damage, why does it matter the order in which the targets are affected? Clearly, all creatures would take the same effect so the order doesn't matter.


Cruel Kindness wrote:

Thank you for posting the general rules for casting a spell. These rules apply, except where they don't. Pazio probably listed the spell as being a "Target" instead of an "Area" to avoid confusion about where the spell originates since the spell lists a range of Close. Yes, they needed to list the range as Close because if it was Self (as in emanated from yourself) people would interpret it to mean it only affects yourself.

Yes, the spell can turn corners as per a Spread spell. No, you don't need to see the targets and as such you can't choose targets. The spell chooses which targets it affects, in order of closest to furthest.

If anything, the points you made actually reaffirm my standpoint. If you could CHOOSE the targets, the spell wouldn't be a Spread, it would be a Burst.

This, again. The spell specifies that "you emit" the scream which means, to me, the origin is always the caster and ignores the Range stat block. Look at the options for range. They're all either too short or too far to properly describe the actual "range" of the spell. If Pazio tried to make it a proper Emmination it would continue to function as long as the caster concentrated on the spell. Rock and a hard place, if you ask me.


Fireball does an average of 52.5 damage at level 20 (min 15/max 90) per target with a minimum saving throw 14 against Ref for half. SR and Fire resist/immune applies.

Horrid wilting does an average of 70 damage at level 20 (min 20/max 120) per target with a minimum saving throw 21 against Fort for half. SR applies.

Wail of the Banshee does an average of 200 damage at level 20 (min 200/max 200) to a single target with a minimum saving throw of 23 against Fort for full. SR and Sonic resist/immune apply.

Just using those numbers as guidelines, the spell is already superior albeit not by a lot. Not much is Sonic resist/immune, so that doesn't count against it much. And, again, you're just ignoring the lack of spell components nessicary to cast WotB. The spell comes built in with Still Spell and Eschew Materials. Free casting in armor? Check. Cast while grappled? Check. Cast while holding objects in both hands? Check. Cast while chained up after being brought up on charges of malicious Necromancy? Double check. And we're not even talking about synergy with Necromancy specialization, undead templates, rounding out a Necro's otherwise limited spell focus, et cetera. As a "stay away from me" threat, it's a fairly reliable save-or-suck that hits things that might be otherwise sneaking up on you, too.

This spell is not broken. It's limited in use, yes, but actually it's a pretty decent spell. It could perhaps stand to be looked at once more and try to word things more precisely. People like more rules rather than less, apparently.

Edit: Ninja'd by Hangar. I'm starting to understand the argument that it could be interpreted as damage to all creatures in the area, but why don't they point that out specifically as in Fireball?

I also persist that the origin of WotB is always the caster, spreading 40' in all directions. The Effect text box indicates this.


Here's another question I've seen hotly debated. Chill Touch allows "Targets creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)" per the PFSRD. Can I hold the charge(s) from a casting of Chill Touch and make Full Attack Actions using Spellstrike in subsequent rounds? At level 5 I get five "touches" total, so they should last through (maybe) 3 rounds of Full Attack/Spellstrike actions as long as I don't cast another spell, right?

Also, started an Advice thread for my specific build here. Any input is appreciated.


Okay, so my friends and I decided to switch from 3.5 to PF. The Magus class caught my eye and I decided I might give it a go; now I'm a little overwhelmed. Let me give you guys the things I've chosen and can't change before I get ahead of myself.

Level 1 Elf Magus (Hexcrafter & Staff Magus Archetypes) Stats were rolled as follows:
Str: 18
Dex: 13 (After Racial)
Con: 16 (After Racial)
Int: 20 (After Racial)
Wis: 11
Cha: 10

Traits I choose were Get the Cargo Through (Regional) and Rich Parents (Social) to max starting wealth at 1200 GP which were well spent. Besides Cantrips on my spell list, I've selected Color Spray, Enlarge Person, Illusion of Calm, Jury Rig, Obscuring Mist, Shield, Shocking Grasp, and True Strike. Feat at first level was Combat Expertise. All of these things are set in stone, cannot change them.

From here onwards I've got no idea what to do. My feat selection is a bit daunting, even more once I realized I could potentially take the Extra Arcana feat to take an additional Hex if I wanted to.

Additional information you may find helpful: My party consists of myself, a Bard, a Cleric of Serena, a Qigong Monk, and a Poisoner Rogue. I've been sharing the role of frontliner with the Monk and sharing the arcane caster role with the Bard. The Cleric is really just a band-aid and the Rogue isn't much more than a distraction with a little bit of damage so far. None of us are trying to powergame, be munchkins, or whatever you want to call it, but myself and the Bard are both proficient with the d20 system. The Cleric and the Rogue aren't strangers to d20, but in no way optimizers. The Monk falls in the same boat, but I think he's read some optimization threads for Qigong Monk because I don't believe he'd come up with the Vow of Silence/Vow of Poverty/Elemental Fist combo he's running on his own. Also, we're currently in Skulls & Shackles Book 1 (Smuggler's Shiv), but I think the GM plans on taking us into a more custom setting once we get off the island.

Anyways, hopefully I can get some enlightened responses and possibly even some good build suggestions. Thanks for your time.


Now we're really getting away from the rules discussion and into "So-and-so spell isn't strong enough" complaint waters.

On that topic all I'm going to ask is this: a spell that can do 200 fixed damage against a single target within 40 feet, without having any line of sight, only needing verbal components, in a Standard Action, and a DC starting at 23 (10+9+4) is too weak? Average fighter HP (with a 20 Con) only has 214.5 HP at lvl 20, if my math is correct...


Not exactly PF friendly, but with some easy conversion Shadowrun would probably give you the most comprehensive options.


Only slightly off topic, but I was playing SSBB tonight and noticed that Cap.'s flying knee attack is easily as or more powerful than the Falcon Punch. If you have the game, perform a running jump facing towards the opponent, hold towards them and press A (on the N64 controller). Time it right and it will even parry most of Bowser's attacks.

Easily the most underrated move in the game, next to Louigi's taunt.

His fighting style reminds me of a mixture of Tai Kwon Do and Muai Thai. Lots of fast, powerful footwork with some powerful single upper body strikes. Maybe try to work that into the build for more Cap flavor.


Except Spreads DON'T need LoS, they ONLY need LoE.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Cruel Kindness wrote:
This is false. Even in melee rules, you can hit an Invisible creature without a means to see invisible creatures, as per attacking a creature with Total Concealment.

We are speaking of targeting spells, not melee/ranged attacks.

PRD magic section wrote:
--omitted for brevity--

Very clearly worded.

You allow magic missile to hit invisible creatures even if the caster can't see them?

To reiterate something that you don't seem to grasp: Wail of the Banshee has a target line, instead of a Area line like in the 3.5 version. That target line has a specific set of rules that aren't bypassed/negated by the spell text.

Did you just stop reading my post at that point, or are you purposefully quoting me out of context? I can't believe I'm getting drawn back into this...

Magic Missile is clearly a Targeted spell that affects one creature. Wail of the Banshee is a Targeted spell with a Spread affect. Go read the rules for Spread spells and how they interact with creatures that you do not have line of sight. Keep in mind Line of Sight and Line of Effect are not always the same thing.

I understand fully that Wail of the Banshee has a Target line. This is what you don't seem to grasp: the Target line rules are GENERAL rules. They apply to all spells with that type. Wail of the Banshee tells you which creatures get targeted and in which order, according to the last sentence of the Effect block. That is a SPECIFIC rule that TRUMPS THE GENERAL rule of how Targeted spells work.

As to why Pazio changed it from it's 3.X equivalents, I can only guess. My money's on the argument that with Area type spells you get to choose the area affected and the point of origin, as Ilja here seems to think. I'm not even going to entertain that point, as it's just silly. Per the PRD: "When you cast this spell, you emit a terrible, soul-chilling scream that possibly kills..." emphasis mine.

From here down is all speculation on my part, so bear that in mind. Spoiler'd for brevity.

My Humble Guess at Intent And Balance of Power:
In my humble opinion, I'd guess the spell was designed to be used by a BBEG. It's a Necromancy school with the Death descriptor, it doesn't effect Undead or Constructs, with only Verbal Spell Components, and is one Standard action. In my mind, I see a Lich or perhaps some other Necromancy focused Wizard, wading into combat surrounded by Undead. I lean more towards Lich due to their touch attack abilities working well with the short range of WotB, even if Grappled or otherwise restricted since it's Verbal only. As a Spread, it would affect the PC's trying to take down said Lich/Necro even if they were, for instance, a stealthed Rouge, an Invisable spellcaster, or just the Fighter doing the grappling I mentioned earlier. Continuing to assume the spell was designed mainly for GM use against PC's, the power balance "issue" of the spell is much easier to understand. The spell is a 9th level spell to make use of high DC's, but the potential damage (the way I persist the RAW states) is lower so you don't instagib the non-martials caught in the area. The damage is spread from closest first which (hopefully) should be the martial PC's who have the high Fort save and high HP and can take a good hit. If one of the martial PC's fall, the extra damage doesn't go to waste. It rolls over to, perhaps, a Shadowdancer PC who was trying to move in and start using that Flanking bonus. Even using Hide in Plain Sight(Su), the Spread effect of WotB allows the caster to hit that PC too, but it's only roll-over damage, not another full damage hit, which gives that non-martial PC a better chance to get away if things just went too far south since his flanker just died.

It's funny how, the way I interpret RAW, the spell makes perfect sense, is rather useful, and isn't too poorly balanced. Not overpowered, but doing 100 damage at caster level 10 to your frontline fighter PC is nothing to sneeze at, especially after getting chewed on by even a small group of undead.


Interesting that during the conversion from 3.5 to PF they dropped the bit about treating them as large creatures, though they left in the size bonus to the CMB. Strictly by RAW, I'd agree with Quandry since Spread spells affect in all directions. For ease of table use, I'd probably run it as a 20' radius circle on the ground that effects 10' upwards within that circle.


Okay, seriously. This is my last post in this thread... I don't even know why I'm letting this bother me. *Sigh*

Kayerloth wrote:
Because the rules for Spread and Burst effects are different. A burst effect does not, as far as I know, go around a corner only a spread will do that. Hence yes, by RAW, if the effect was a Burst then you would not 'hear' anything around the corner at least with respect to being effected by the spell. And obviously this makes no sense ... the Wail should be heard and effect targets around a corner. This is turn leads to the dilemma of not being able to visualize a target of the spell (and the general need for more clarity is felt).

Right. Wail of the Banshee IS a Spread effect so you DO hear it around corners. Your post leads me to believe you're confused as to how the spell works.

stuart haffenden wrote:

When you're working out your damage distribution, which I think is totally wrong, are you using current hit points above 0, hit points down to -10 or hit points down to -con? I really don't think there is anything unclear about the spell dealing the full 10/level to all targets.

The only reason the target bit gets mentioned is because you need to point out who gets hit working from Centre out to radius just in case there are more targets than you have levels within the whole area of the spell. It is clear that you can't avoid allies.

The spell states it kills creatures, so apply damage until the Death condition is met. The "target bit" you're referring to is because the spell is a Spread and you don't even need to be aware of their presence to affect them as I will explain below. Using Fireball as an example, the effect block states "points of fire damage to every creature within the area." WotB has no such line, thus it has a fixed damage that it applies, in order of effect, much like the Sleep spell explaining which creatures are affected until the maximum HD is met.

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:

Yet, by the same rules, you can't hit an invisible creature without a means to see invisible creatures. That seems a bit more ludicrous.

Is there a place to suggest official errata on spells that obviously make no freaking sense whatsoever? Logic suggests that this is the most poorly worded spell in core.

This is false. Even in melee rules, you can hit an Invisible creature without a means to see invisible creatures, as per attacking a creature with Total Concealment.

Total Concealment per the PFSRD:
Total Concealment

If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.


Emphasis mine. And that's just attacking with melee, not using a magic spell with a Spread Area of 40'. Spread spells have effect around blind corners, as specifically stated in the core rules. WotB, as a Spread effect, can effect Invisible creatures as well as creatures that can't otherwise be Targeted. Hence the final line in it's Effect text explaining which creatures it Targets, and in which order (for the purposes of damage distribution as I explained above). I cannot explain this any simpler.

In regards to DreamGoddessLindsey's previous post, I don't think anyone was "flaming" you, though even making jokes (looking at you, ShoulderPatch) is a bit off-color in the Rules Questions sub forum. Having said that, DGL took it way too far. I'll leave this thread to it's fate, but just wanted to try one last time to try and clarify RAW in this thread for anyone who might find it later.


That whole Magical Lineage/Intensified Shocking Grasp combo is one of the two things I see brought up in every Magus thread I've read so far. The other is Rime'd Frostbite.

Did I mention I also dislike cliches? On the topic of traits, I took Rich Parents and Get The Cargo Through (Serpent's Skull campaign trait) to maximize starting gold at 1200. Masterwork Quarterstaff/Glass Tool to fit my concept of a rich kid turned artesan/merchant to rebel against his parents as kids will do. Basically, he fights with a glass blowing pipe as a quarterstaff. Masterwork Chain Shirt to help offset the check penalties that suck most at low level. Masterwork backpack because why not? Level 1 Elf spell caster with relative carry Str of 19? I'm the party's pack mule, frontline fighter, AND arcane caster, amusingly.

Does anyone know of any Staff Magus/Hexcrafter guides? Of course, I've seen Walter's guide and STR Ranger's guide, but they both seem to favor crit builds and I don't recall either mentioning the Staff Magus archetype besides saying its sub-optimal.

Edit: More specifically, I'm looking for arcana/hex choices and feat choices that work best with the archetype choices I've made. So many options are available to me and I I'm overwhelmed. Maybe I should post a new thread over in Advice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good read, thanks for the post.


Here's a question, albeit a kind of silly one. If Mage is singular for Magi, what is the plural of Magus?

I'm also trying to stay away from Arcane Mark. It just feels... cheesy. It's not really an offensive spell and I, personally, don't feel like it should qualify for use with Spell Combat/Channeling. I concede that by the RAW, it does but I just pretend it doesn't for my character.

Before reading the boards here, I decided on Staff Magus archetype. I liked the concept of a Magus who looks like a Wizard with a magic staff but could whoop some tail with said staff, while also still casting (sort of) like a Wizard. Then convinced my GM to allow me to add Hexcrafter to effectively replace Arcane Mark with Brand. At least Brand is an offensive spell, so I feel better about using that instead.

Maybe that's my problem... I've get option paralysis. The number of possible builds between those two archetypes is a bit staggering. Should I focus on Hexes instead of Arcana? Should I take Metamagic feats or follow the Twirling Staff tree? Maybe pick up Craft Wondrous Item? Possibly Familiar/Improved Familliar? Should I dip Fighter? Witch? Maybe take Maneuver Master Monk for a few levels to get some more quartetstaff related abilities?

Just...wow.


My group is also playing Skulls & Shackles and I was very excited to see what seemed to be a very well thought out gish class. I've played almost every base class in 3.0/3.5, and thought it would be really fun playing a dedicated gish. New system, new class, what's not to like.

Maybe its just me (I get terribad rolls) but at level one and two the Magus just... struggles. Literally, my character was at -3 HP because a boat collapsed on him at one point. Actually, he couldn't make even one of the three reflex rolls my GM gave me. 3d6 later...

So, I came here looking for advice and found more questions than answers. Hence, this thread. I love the flavor but the crunch is killing me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm done here. Ad hominim attacks everywhere. People not understanding what ad hominem really means. Interpretations of RAW that are just... mind boggling. The way I read the spell, everything is crystal clear. Apparently I apply too much logic (or not enough) to even understand where the confusion stems from.

Have fun, and have a nice day.


Kayerloth, are you suggesting you can't hear someone screaming less than 20' away if they're around a corner? RAI and RAW seem to match there, so I don't understand what you mean. Maybe the OP didn't like what they were seeing in this thread so they made another and abandoned this one...

Ilja, the specific rules for WotB definitely don't mesh with the general or the OP wouldn't be confused in the first place. Thus, specific trumps general is the answer.

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>