|
A potion of Lesser Restor is nice, but it usually takes 3 such potions just to counter one Ray of Enfeeblement spell. Empowered, it would take 5!No, it doesn't. A single lesser restoration erases an ability penalty (not damage), no matter how large.
From that perspective, I admit, I sit corrected.
Robert
Since many people posted about the lost of carrying capacity (with RoE)and casting (with ToI) I think I should point out some major changes in PF Beta in Chapter 16 pages 388 and 389.
For Bonuses:
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores.
Ability score increases whose duration is 1 day or less
give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of
increase
to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills
and statistics
listed with the relevant ability.
For Damage and Drain:
For every two points of damage you take to a single
ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed
with the relevant ability.
The text goes on specifiying what is affected in each case.
It does not explicitly state the effects of a "Penalty to an ability score" but I think it states the a rule intent. To me a penalty is a negative bonus, so no effect on encumberment from RoE.
|
|
The text goes on specifiying what is affected in each case.
It does not explicitly state the effects of a "Penalty to an ability score" but I think it states the a rule intent. To me a penalty is a negative bonus, so no effect on encumberment from RoE.
I'm not sure if that's a fair assessment. I could be wrong.
It is my opinion that IF that is the way they want RoE to work, they would reword it to stipulate a Penalty to Attack/Damage and skills (not a penalty to Strength which has many other mechanics piggy-backed off that ability: CMB, opposed checks, attack, damage, skills, encumbrance etc.
Robert
...
It is my opinion that IF that is the way they want RoE to work, they would reword it to stipulate a Penalty to Attack/Damage and skills ...
I think the point is to generate a mechanic on which most spells and effects that alter ability scores are calculated on the same level.
Ex.: The fighter loses 6 points from RoE and then gets a +4 bonus from Bull’s Strength, end result : -1 on att., dam., CMB and str based skill rolls. Otherwise some effect change encumbrance and other don’t. I favour going KISS.
I also figure that it’s an easier way to help backward (and forward) compatibility of most ability altering effects. I’m not sure it was originally intended that RoE could immobilize a fighter from the weight of is gear, but that’s my take on it.
The text goes on specifiying what is affected in each case.
It does not explicitly state the effects of a "Penalty to an ability score" but I think it states the a rule intent. To me a penalty is a negative bonus, so no effect on encumberment from RoE.
>sigh>
I'm not sure if that's a fair assessment. I could be wrong.It is my opinion that IF that is the way they want RoE to work, they would reword it to stipulate a Penalty to Attack/Damage and skills (not a penalty to Strength which has many other mechanics piggy-backed off that ability: CMB, opposed checks, attack, damage, skills, encumbrance etc.
Robert
Robert You are right. It effects everything, effect on encumberment, attack, damage, etc.
I've done quite a bit of spell research and discussion over the past few years - and although RoE has always been considered a very good spell - I've seldom seen it described as "broken"
For the empower argument - this has been discussed many times - and the answer is unclear. My personal rule is to always assume the more conservative view until proven otherwise...
Honestly - I would consider Grease, Silent Image, and other first level spells to be just as good as RoE (or better in the case of SI)
And that's BEFORE the 1 round/level thing...
in my campaigns a - 3 to hit and damage in itself seems to have a huge impact on how a battle plays out, even without the impact on encumberance, skills, feats, checks, CMB and other stuff.
Basically I ruled it was just too powerful in it's present form, empower spell is not really the problem it is the spell itself, if you can cast this as a 1st level spell why not craft an improved version at lvl 3 or up ?
Ray of exhaustion seems similar enough to me that we do not need RoE in the campaign so I just dropped it. I play in another campaign as a dread necromancer and is part of my spell list, the DM ruled there is a fortitude save to negate it. I don't see how that is underpowered for a 1st level spell, it is still basically a save or suck spell.
|
Since many people posted about the lost of carrying capacity (with RoE)and casting (with ToI) I think I should point out some major changes in PF Beta in Chapter 16 pages 388 and 389.
For Bonuses:
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores.
Ability score increases whose duration is 1 day or less
give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of
increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills
and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
I think the reason for that text was to close the potential artificial abuse of casting an Int-boosting spell, <just> before levelling up, to benefit from extra skill points, or passing round a belt of CON, before rolling your new Hit Die, so everyone got an extra hit point.
IE you get the benefits while the spell is running (or item is worn) but lose it when the effect ends (or item is removed).
As for affecting carrying capacity, sometimes the whole reason for casting Bull Strength, or raging, is to perform some feat of strength, such as lift a portcullis, or drag two companions to safety.
And sometimes the reason for zapping someone with RoE, or Str-damage poison, etc, is to prevent them pulling such an action off.
|
|
in my campaigns a - 3 to hit and damage in itself seems to have a huge impact on how a battle plays out, even without the impact on encumberance, skills, feats, checks, CMB and other stuff.
Basically I ruled it was just too powerful in it's present form, empower spell is not really the problem it is the spell itself, if you can cast this as a 1st level spell why not craft an improved version at lvl 3 or up ?
I agree completely. And you're right, it's not the empower feat - it's the spell itself. I only added the feat initially to indicate that not only is the spell as a first level spell a problem, even an empowered taking up a third level slot is a problem.
And the -3 being an impact is more like -5 when you consider that at 10th level, a roll of 5 on the d6 is 10 points of strength penalty. Empowered - its like -7 on attack rolls!
I have since changed it to a flat: 2 points at first level, with a +1 per 2 caster levels to a total of 12 at 20th level. The max at 10th level is now 7 (not 11) And it can't be empowered. Ultimately it caps at only 1 pt of strength more than it use to - but at 20th level - not 10th.
Robert
|
|
What, you expect them to actually read? To understand the difference between a comma and a conjunction? But they both start with C!From PFRPG: "Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered
spell are increased by one-half."That's a comma, not an "and".
~Conjunction Junction, what's your function?...~
(And the comma is just poor grammar in that sentence. Completely extraneous...)
Silent Image has uses in combat too. It can provide extra "summoned" monsters, "change" the battlefield, provide total concealment for someone (hide them behind a wall), fake cast a flaming sphere or other such effect, Be used to demoralize enemy troops, and other useful shinanigens.
Any spell that causes a Fighter to collapse beneath the weight of his own armor seems like a pretty bad one to me. This spell really should apply a penalty to hit and damage rolls instead.
There are several issues with RoE
1) If the spell i applyed to a fighter i reduces(as intendet) his chance to hit and his Dmg potetial. the effect is really hard on a two handed wilder with powerattack feat(making u unable to use the feat or rendering it near useless)
a)in order to remove it u need to either use dispell magic, with the potential chance to remove any/all buff spells
b)lesser restoration....and you dont wast 3 rounds casting that in combat, simply you rearly have the time
2) the spell makes the target vunerable to all Combat manuvers. all other clases than the fighter is hit hard by this effect
3) worst of all if u smack this on the barbarian there is a chance he will be heavy loaded(equal to heave armor) or the rogues, who very often have a str of 10 or less.... potentially reducing him/her to strenge 1....and we all know what that meens in terms of carying capacity.
tuch of idiocy has some of the smae problems, with the added chance of removing bonus spell's or acces to higher lvl spells(u have to have a score of 10+1 pr spell lvl to casts a spell)
these effects are equal to bestow curse in power range. up to -7 to attack and dmg, -6 to many skills for heavy load, losse acces to some feats. -7 to cmb's..the list goes on and on. on top of that bestow cures has a safe/negate... the counter argument might be the shoret duration, but honestly how many rouds to a normal combat last
that beeing said the spell is fine but perhaps to powerfull for its lvl
|
|
I was in a playtest last week and my monk/fighter was the target of ROE from a 6th level caster. My character suffered a 6 point penalty to STR and was greatly reduced in melee effectiveness. -3 to hit, damage and CMB was a significant gimp for a 14 STR, BAB 5 character.
The spell required a hit roll, so I found ways to boost his touch AC (fighting defensively, ki points to add to AC)to prevent further touch attacks, as the caster was hoping for a higher roll. BTW specific language that the penalties don't stack is needed.
The 6 round duration reduced the monk's effectiveness for most of the combat, but he was able to hit back pretty well once it wore off (took down the caster IIRC -payback's a smurf!).
I found these limiting factors to be very reasonable and, although I didn't like being on the receiving end of the spell, didn't find it nearly as disruptive as a save or die spell like hold person.
If spell resistance, concealment, targeted dispel/counterspells were in play, this spell would be nigh useless. I'll be playing a caster with the spell (level 7) soon, so I'll have some input on the "sender" side of the spell soon. Cheers!