Aredil Sultur

sherlock1701's page

Organized Play Member. 496 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.




So I found a really bizarre interaction with the encounter and detection rules. Something like this was in the playtest and it loos like it wasn't fixed.

Let's say the following happens:

1. You, a rogue, sneak up on a cleric in the middle of a planar ally ritual.
2. You are sneaking so well that you are unnoticed over the sound of the ritual incantation. Perhaps you're a couple hundred feet away.
3. You declare you are going to shoot the cleric.
4. At this point, you must roll initiative against the cleric, who still has no idea you're there.
5. Because you have initiated an encounter, the Planar Ally ritual immediately fails.
5. The cleric wins initiative. You are still Unnoticed to him - he hasn't seen/heard/smelled you etc, but all of a sudden his ritual is disrupted for no apparent reason.

Are you now Undetected because the ritual ended? How did the ritual end before a single blow was thrown, and before the performing party was even aware there was a hostile party nearby?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a phrase that I've seen in basically every spell that creates something temporarily, or temporarily changes the form of something (e.g. the Precious Metals focus spell).

I understand the rationale behind it (even though I disagree with it - players should absolutely be able to scam NPCs, with all the negative and positive consequences that entails), but that's beside the point.

How can people tell that the effect is magical and temporary, especially the latter? Sure, maybe the item is surrounded by swirling magical energies, making it obvious that magic is at play somehow. But what about the effect makes it obvious to Joe Barbarian, who has never seen a spell like this in his life, that the effect is temporary?

This isn't explained anywhere, and I can't really see any way to justify it short of every such affected item emitting a holographic image of "this item reverts to it's natural form in:" and a countdown, or some similar effect. Either that, or every single citizen of every single culture, regardless of how remote, has been so intensely educated from birth in identifying every spell that could be used for fraud, that they can instantly identify such effects without an Identify check.

If this required a Perception or Arcana/Religion/etc check against spell DC, it would make sense, but the fact that any person can immediately identify the effect as temporary with a casual glance is difficult to justify.


This is a phrase that I've seen in basically every spell that creates something temporarily, or temporarily changes the form of something (e.g. the Precious Metals focus spell).

I understand the rationale behind it (even though I disagree with it - players should absolutely be able to scam NPCs, with all the negative and positive consequences that entails), but that's beside the point.

How can people tell that the effect is magical and temporary, especially the latter? Sure, maybe the item is surrounded by swirling magical energies, making it obvious that magic is at play somehow. But what about the effect makes it obvious to Joe Barbarian, who has never seen a spell like this in his life, that the effect is temporary?

This isn't explained anywhere, and I can't really see any way to justify it short of every such affected item emitting a holographic image of "this item reverts to it's natural form in:" and a countdown, or some similar effect. Either that, or every single citizen of every single culture, regardless of how remote, has been so intensely educated from birth in identifying every spell that could be used for fraud, that they can instantly identify such effects without an Identify check.

If this required a Perception or Arcana/Religion/etc check against spell DC, it would make sense, but the fact that any person can immediately identify the effect as temporary with a casual glance is difficult to justify.


Let's assume you're level 4, with a weapon dealing 1d8+4, and 2d10 Harm damage (with Harming Hands) when cast with the single-action touch version (because you're a Rovagug cleric for some reason). We'll also assume you have a 60% chance to hit your enemy, and that the enemy has a 60% chance to fail its Fort save vs. Harm.

Channel Smite deals, on average:
(4.5+2*5.5+4)*(.45+.15*2)=14.625 damage. If it misses, it deals no damage at all.

A single weapon attack deals:
(4.5+4)*(.45+.15*2)=6.375 damage

Single-Action Harm cast normally deals:
(2*5.5)*(.15*2+.45+.35/2)=10.175 damage.

Channel Smite lets you deal 14.625 damage on average on two actions (with no damage and a wasted spell on miss), while Strike+Harm deals an average of 16.5 damage (with 5.5 average damage on a miss+noncritical save success).

The advantage of Channel Smite is that it seemingly wouldn't provoke AoOs, but given the rarity of AoOs, that's an extremely unlikely benefit. It might also be somewhat more effective against oozes, but their critical immunity would cancel out the extra to-hit.

I certainly don't see a benefit that could compete with taking another 4th-level feat, or going back for another 1st or 2nd level feat, given that on average Harm+Smite will deal more damage than Channel Smite (and deals semi-guaranteed damage).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
*points* "Sic 'em, Rover!"

-Costs one action

Quote:
*points* "Valeros! Unleash a flurry of arrows on yon ghoul!"

-Costs nothing


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of the fact that it's now only possible to bolster one attribute, and only by +2. I get not wanting everyone at 20th to have +6 on all stats, but I think there's a middle ground between "max bonus to everything" and "tiny bonus to one thing".

I really liked the way this was implemented in Starfinder. You could get a +6, a +4, and a +2, all had to be in different stats. This way, you could bolster a few attributes that mattered, but you couldn't go for the cheapest option on all of them, meaning you needed to make some decisions while still having several options.

I'd like to see that brought into this system. I think it would also aid in increasing the gap between very skilled and unskilled checks for PCs, which I currently see as too narrow.


I don't think that Quicken should be 1/day; I can't see myself ever taking it. Saving one action once per day just isn't worth the cost of the feat, especially when it's in direct competition with Invisibility Cloak and Spell Penetration (for a wizard), which could be used far more frequently and to greater effect. Similarly for Sorcerer, it competes with Blood Magic, Bloodline Resistance, and Overwhelming Spell, all of which I consider superior options due to their increased usability.

I can understand wanting to limit its use, but it could be done in a way that doesn't make it too limited to pick. Couple options:

-Make it cost a Spell Point.
-Make it increase the level of slot required by 1, without any related bonuses (a la` PF1).
-Make it cost a Resonance point.


Here's an idea - maybe a lot of the martial feats should be general feats, and you should get more general feats. In their place, you could put in powers for martial characters, fueled by Spell Points (call them Stamina points or whatever for martials).

This would transition the generic combat bits that anyone should be able to learn to a more common pool, while giving fighters/rogues/etc more unique options that would be fun to play.

One good example would be the old Warrior's Spirit advanced weapon training option from PF1. Spend a stamina point to either add one of a list of properties or a +1 enhancement to a weapon. Successive iterations of the ability could provide large bonuses/unlock more properties.

In fact, using the advanced weapon and armor training options as martial powers could be a good start.

Alternatively, go with something like hte 3.5 Tome of Battle - that would be really cool.


Kind of a minor thing, but for spells that only target the caster, it would be nice to have "Target: self" in the spell info line. It's a little easier to parse than the "you do/you gain" verbiage, and prevents me needing to reference the text block when evaluating targeting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I've got a few thoughts on how the spell list can be improved, and how spells in general could be bettered.

First, the spell list isn't well-organized. All spells and class powers are mashed together, sorted only alphabetically, with no indication of which class or magic tradition it's associated with.

My proposed resolution is:
-Separate powers from spells and either a)put powers in their class block or b) sort powers out by class and level
-Sort spells by level first, then alphabetically within level (so cantrips A-Z, 1st-level A-Z, etc.)
-MOST IMPORTANT: In the top info bar for a spell, include the magic traditions it's associated with. This would avoid the current issue (which is also my biggest issue with the spell sorting in 5e), where if you're reading through all the spells, you have to keep jumping between your class list and the spell description to see if you can use that spell.
-Overall, make it so that if I want to say, pick a second-level spell, I don't even need to look at the spell list - I should just be able to read through descriptions of second-level spells until I find the one I want, and know I qualify for it.

On to spells themselves. My biggest beef is that we've gone the way of DnD, where spell power is independent of the caster's ability to cast spells. What I mean is, there's no scaling with caster level. A 1st-level cleric and a 20th-level cleric cast Bless or disrupting Weapons exactly the same - the only difference is that one might Heighten the spell. I would contend that heightening shouldn't be necessary, that the 20th-level cleric is inherently better at magic and that all his spells ought to be commensurately more powerful.

Some things that could scale with caster level:
-Magnitude/damage
-Number of targets
-Range (why get rid of Close/Medium/Long? Those were easy values to remember and we didn't need the exact number of feet spelled out, as it were).

I realize that DCs technically scale with caster level, but that's kind of boring. I'd rather have DCs be based on the spell level (why is it just as easy to dodge a fireball as a burning hands, for example?)

Another issue is that damage is really inconsistent across spells of the same level. Historically, this has often favored arcane casters, with no really good reason for it - this seems unchanged in this edition. However, even in the same magical tradition, there are gross discrepancies. For example, at third level, Searing Light deals 4d6 damage to one target (0 on a miss) and (maybe) dispels a darkness effect. Lightning Bolt, at the same level, deals 4d12 (almost twice as much, half on a "miss"), and can hit several targets. Both of these spells are in the Primal tradition. I don't think the possibility of dispelling some darkness (in the rare even there is any on the battlefield) is worth sacrificing that much damage. I can't imagine any druid/primal sorcerer choosing Searing Light over Lightning Bolt/Fireball (or even Acid Arrow).

A lot of transmutation/conjuration spells and power seem pointless. Take the 2nd-level Artistic Flourish power, for example. You make something look like a work of art and really beautiful. However, even the most casual observer can tell that the effect is "obviously temporary", so you can't sell it for extra. Why would you cast this? You can't commit fraud wit hit, and you won't impress anyone, because they automatically notice it's a fake. Who would care about this power?
For that matter, how is an effect "obviously Temporary"? If I use Creation to make a wooden shield, it can be used like a real wooden shield for the duration - how would anyone know otherwise? Is everyone in the world a magical savant? If they just notice a magical aura, why couldn't you fool them into thinking it was a magic shield? Does it appear ephemeral? Why couldn't you lie and say it's a ghost touch shield? There are arbitrary rules here to keep players from doing cool stuff (presumably in the name of "balance", which is overrated in tabletop anyway). I'd think the consequences of committing fraud should be adequate to counterbalance the benefits of getting money with such spells/powers.

My final topic (for now) is on persistent damage. Given the buffs to health (maximized die at every level!) and nerfs to damage across the board, it's pretty clear that sticking persistent damage is the way to go to hurt someone - it's really hard to get rid of, and you can afflict them with multiple types at once (and it's not hard to do so either).

This primarily concerns me as a GM. Tactical players (which mine are) will try and stick persistent damage on many enemies in a fight, to maximize the effectiveness. This is cool from a player perspective, but now as a GM I'm tracking two, three, four, etc. persistent damages per monster - the bookkeeping gets overwhelming fast. I'd say that players either need other/better ways to deal damage than sticking acid+bleed+burn, or that persistent damage needs to be toned down just a tad. I can't blame anyone for playing that way in the current paradigm - it makes sense to set someone on fire and bleed them out, then leave them to die while focusing on the next target.

And why the heck isn't there a Coup de Grace action?!


Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see any reason to ever take this feat. The only time it provides a bonus is if you NEED to long/high jump to get to your target for some reason. Otherwise, it has the exact same action economy as Stride+Strike or Leap+Strike.

It seems to unlikely for this to even come up for the feat to be useful. I've encountered situations like this maybe once or twice in seven years of tabletop, and it seems like it would always be better to just take a slight hit by using an extra action than sacrificing a feat to save one action in a campaign.

It is competing with decidedly more useful options, like Wholeness of Body, Dancing Leaf, Deflect Arrows, Wolf/Tiger/Dragon/Crane Stance, Ki Strike, etc. Any one of these is likely to be useful multiple times per fight or day.

I'd rather use Stunning Fist, even though it kind of sucks this edition (only stuns on a crit? Why?). If it let you jump more than your Speed (since it's only a straight line), or deal bonus damage/apply conditions with the attack, I could see the value.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Growing up in South Alabama, we saw daily summer temperatures around 110 degrees Fahrenheit, with humidity around 100%. According to the Temperature hazard on page 341, these conditions should deal 1d12 fire damage per ten minutes.

I recall playing outside or doing chores for 2-3 hours at a time when it was like this. This should have dealt an average of 78-117 fire damage to me. Didn't realize I was that high level.


I had kind of an interesting thought on Earth Kineticists. Once you get composite blast (metal), you can (obviously) use it to attack an enemy with metal (presumably from the environment or carried on your person).

If I carried around a few lumps of various special metals (silver, cold iron, etc), couldn't I use them with the composite blast to bypass DR without needing rare-metal infusion?

There's no indication on how much material you need to perform an elemental blast, so a tiny BB would be as effective as anything else. For maybe a thousand gp, you could get a few dozen 0.20g bits of metal of each material. Since you can easily pick up your projectiles after each fight, you'd never run out.

Also, there's no special action required to pick up matter from your element, so you wouldn't run into a situation where action economy would be an issue. At most, it would be a free action as you're essentially grabbing 'ammo'. You could keep each 'ammo' type in a separate pouch if you were concerned about sorting.

The only reason I can see that this wouldn't work is if the elemental material is somehow conjured into being rather than picked up from the environment.

Any thoughts?