Karsus2nd's page

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

KaptainKrunch wrote:

Hmm... Opposition research would let you have all spells if you were an elemental wizard, wouldn't it?

yes

Huh...

It's a shame all the powers suck...

Conjuration.

So in summary, the options to prevent coup de graces are:

1) don't be helpless/have a wake up plan (alarm spells, etc)
2) don't be out in the open (rope trick for the night)
3) get gear to negate critical hits (and thus the coup de grace)
4) possibly have extra guards up (especially if there is extra bodies) and that they need to be positioned to help negate stealthers

Does that pretty much cover it?

I make my game's difficult for my players. CdG Is very reasonable as a DM. If nothing else it teaches them to watch there 6 and gives them a sense of realism. I seek to challenge my players.

The game assumes no limit on number of buffs.

No limit. Same type bonuses do not stack.

Honestly now that you can bend lines like crazy to not affect your allies I've been using them a lot more. Also if you get a caster with it you could really mess up his casting the next turn. But not every spell is for every person (or even every situation).

Personally of all the blasting spells I like dragon's breath the best currently.

Dragons breath is solid.

Note I don't feel it's worse than what's already available at fifth level for damage -- cone of cold.

After all it's a line, but it has repeating damage and caps at 15d6 (which level 5 spells generally do), after all after the repeat it's 'almost' 22d6 of damage out of a 5th level spell.

If I was to nitpick on anything it would be the 60 foot range with a 60 foot line that would cause me to go 'huh'? After all lines extend from the caster for their distance and that's it -- so there is no need for a range line.

Its a line. The spell is garbage. Even if it was Sr:no. Im not sure i would use it.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Tell you what -- I suggest an archive search at this point -- because this has been addressed before when the spells first came out (it's been a long day or I would have remembered and recommended this sooner).

My google-fu must be weak, my forum search mostly links this thread and nothing in the top 50 is relevant. When you get time could you provide a link please?

BTW. Thanks for the back up. Some else had to see something was wrong.

Karsus2nd wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

Acid arrow creates lasting acid that stays around for several rounds. Acidic spray one round of damage (which doesn't count as a lasting effect mind you)

I would like to see evidence that lasting effect is a keyword used anywhere in that book. At 3 level acid arrow lasts how many rounds? 1+1. Not a lasting effect. No?

............ Your the one Citing the Rules that use the term. Fine run it your way that means no spell that does anything that doesn't vanish instantly ignores spell resistance.

Wait let me guess your DM/PC was about to get owned until they saw SR and then you failed the check and you want ammo for the next game.

Na, been playing this game along time for that. :-) Just trying to get some rule clarifications.

Dealing damage upon successful casting does not equal "a lasting effect" sir.

Acid spray is instantaneous. That does damage the next round....

Acid arrow creates lasting acid that stays around for several rounds. Acidic spray one round of damage (which doesn't count as a lasting effect mind you)

I would like to see evidence that lasting effect is a keyword used anywhere in that book. At 3 level acid arrow lasts how many rounds? 1+1. Not a lasting effect. No?

Karsus2nd wrote:

Interzone wrote:

I think he meant a citation of a proof that this spell could not create magical acid. Like, a quote from a book or developer or some such. Not just a repetition of your same argument :P

I gave the quote from the book earlier. Page 209. core. Creation.:-p

My 2 coppers.

"Magic actually has to be working for spell resistance to apply. Spells that have instantaneous durations but lasting results aren't subject to spell resistance unless the resistant creature is exposed to the spell the instant it is cast."

Acidic spray doesn't have lasting results so wouldn't be immune to SR. If anything based on your reasoning needs to change, it's acid splash to SR:yes.

Acidic spray does have a lasting effect... the damage. It does damage therefore it is a lasting effect. If acid splash is changed .... i will be at a loss for words. I believe it counts a an object. Tho it does not last indefinitely. Acid arrow would have to be changed too and so on and so on.

I think he meant a citation of a proof that this spell could not create magical acid. Like, a quote from a book or developer or some such. Not just a repetition of your same argument :P

I gave the quote from the book earlier. Page 209. core. Creation.:-p

Karsus2nd wrote:

Interzone wrote:

The answer then is that the spell Acidic Spray actually creates magical acid. I don't see what part of this wouldn't make sense.

Well..... its not magical.... Its conjuration, creation, instantaneous. Evo is magical. I dont see what part of it would make sense to anyone.

citation on a magical spell not making magical acid in this case?

It is created material no longer held together by magic. Therefore not magic.

The answer then is that the spell Acidic Spray actually creates magical acid. I don't see what part of this wouldn't make sense.

Well..... its not magical.... Its conjuration, creation, instantaneous. Evo is magical. I dont see what part of it would make sense to anyone.

Acidic Spray actually does expose the creature to the spell the instant it is cast. It tries to deal damage right away. Just like any number of other spells that have SR:yes and instantaneous (like Fireball).

What that sentence means is that a creature with SR that enters an area where an instantaneous spell (with SR:yes) still has a lasting effect, the creature's SR doesn't matter because the spell was already cast before it entered the area.

Acid Splash also tries to deal damage right away. And while I do recognize the similarities between Acidic Spray and Fireball, Fireball is Evocation, while Acidic Spray is Conjuration (creation). From the descriptions of the two schools (pgs 209 and 210, Core Rulebook), the fire from the fireball is magical fire, while the instantly created acid from the spray is not. It seems odd that a non-magical acid would be subject to spell resistance.

I never said anything such thing -- I said check the spell.

The 3.5 'system' was by no means followed carefully and the same can be said of pathfinder. 3.5 didn't have a rule that stated that creation spells didn't allow SR -- you are adding things that simply were not (and are not) in the rules.

Each spell is different, they have some universal traits, but even then specific spells can, will, and do ignore these at times.

Creations spells do not have any such rule stated when it comes to SR and never have.

Page 565. Core Rulebook. "When Spell Resistance Applies" section, last paragraph: "Magic actually has to be working for spell resistance to apply. Spells that have instantaneous durations but lasting results aren't subject to spell resistance unless the resistant creature is exposed to the spell the instant it is cast."

In the case of this spell spell resistance is applied because that's what the spell says. Creation spells as a whole don't state one way or the other, in every case you go by what the spell description says.

in 3.5 there was a system to how spells work. Not just random .... because its what the spell says. Hence the spells in complete arcane. Well, what i typed was a quote. So i guess my question is. Are things that are no longer magic subject to spell resistance? According to you its seems to be yes. Witch would be odd. But i suppose possible.

Note that creation doesn't state that there won't be SR though. No rules were broken in the making of this spell.

So things that are not magic are subject to Spell resistance? Thats what im getting that is being said. I just wanna be clear.

Yes. not all Conjuration effects ignore spell resistance. If you take a very good look at those that do, you'll see a general, but not neccessarily absolute, pattern between those that do and those that do not.

If the spell description says Spell Reistance: Yes, than it does not matter what school it is, spell resistance mechanics operate normally.

I did not say all conjuration effects ignore spell resistance. What i said was different. Core rulebook page 209. Creation. "If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence." Acid arrow follows these rules. Acidic spray does not.

The spell acidic spray Say's spell resistance: yes. But it is a Conjuration (creation) with a duration instantaneous. As much as acid arrow is. So y is it a SR: yes spell? Thanks for the help Btw.