|
All good points. I just think that anything that is a death spell should kill. That's it. You're dead. Too bad, so sad. We've got soft on our characters. Death Ward stopped it, and yes, every self-respecting high level had death ward on, so there - no death. But damage spells still did damage.
"Death" should mean death, no questions asked. You miss it, you miss it.
+1...with the new and improved options for returning from the other side, I'd like to see the save or die spells restored. By the time the BBEG has access to deadly spells, the party cleric has at least 6d6 channel energy to offset a good portion of the damage caused.
And on another note, Death Ward has only a 1 min/lvl duration and is a single target spell. IMHO, it is not an automatic to expect all the players to have one going at the onset of every combat. Having a Ring of Death Ward or perhaps a Handy Haversack full of Death Ward potions is possible, but I do not see it as functional as many seem to think.
+1...with the new and improved options for returning from the other side, I'd like to see the save or die spells restored.
I quoted this just as an example of something I have now read two or three times in this thread that I want to make sure I understand:
Death spells should be deadly to characters because character death doesn't matter?
That seems strange to me.
AJ
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I don't mind the save or oodles of damage 'death' spells.
Is it not a legitimate fiction trope that the heroes survive things that kill mere mortals?
It's not like the villian/hero comes through the thing intact. They take large tracts of damage.
I never understood why death effects are such a problem when by the time death effects are slamming you, you have easier access to resurrection spells. It's awesome and inspiring to say "I can kill you with but a shout to my deity and a point of my finger." But then the burly fighter winces in pain and goes,"Hah hah, it hurt me a lot but I am still alive!" So the cleric of a DEATH god has to look like an idiot casting it again or resorting to Flame Strike anyway. Not cool. The idea of an enemy ripping your soul out or just a hand gesture, some words of power, and SLOOP, there you go imploding should ALWAYS be feared and it should give the players a sense of "This isn't someone we can mob on, one of us WILL die if we handle this the usual way."
I also don't understand the strange concept of "Players shouldn't lose their characters because of a bad luck of the die roll." It's freaking D&D, crap is going to happen always on the bad luck of a die roll. You can miss, you can fail to tumble and take an AoO that will kill you, you can fail a save, you can DIE! It's no different than the "lucky" roll of a monster scoring a critical hit WITH a two-handed Power Attack coming down on you. It's no different than a failed Reflex save against a 10d6 fireball while on 10 hp. It's no different than a monster passing its CMB and bull rushing you into the lava pit.
I was peeved at disintegrate getting the shaft already. There's no need for other spells to, also. Leave the death spells be. They're deadly for a reason.
1. How was disintegrate altered?
2. I agree, death should mean death, otherwise its just a "this really hurts" spell. If I want one of those I can metamagic some other spell until it does ridiculous damage, most likely more than any amount the so called death spells will do.
+1...with the new and improved options for returning from the other side, I'd like to see the save or die spells restored.I quoted this just as an example of something I have now read two or three times in this thread that I want to make sure I understand:
Death spells should be deadly to characters because character death doesn't matter?
That seems strange to me.
AJ
It's not that their deaths don't matter, but sometimes fate/luck/etc is not on your side. It's no different than me critting you with a scythe(x4, you being bull-rushed off a cliff. Dying to a failed save or dying because I rolled really well is still dead. It also doesn't make sense to call them death spells if they don't kill you outright. I didn't spam death spams in 3.5 as a DM, but when I did use them there was legitimate fear for an unprepared party. Now they are just inconvenienced.
PS: Yeah I know part of my examples were stolen from a previous post.
I just think it's too easy a way from a flavor perspective. A caster says a word and point a finder and you're dead? Where's the action in that?
It depends on how the spell is described. If the DM says you start to drool, blood runs out of your nose, your eyes roll into the back of your head, and so forth it could be a great death scene.
My description was not great, but you get what I mean.
1. How was disintegrate altered?
It used to just kill outright, fail the save and you're disintegrated. Pass, it was 5d6 damage. Now it just deals damage.
It used to just kill outright, fail the save and you're disintegrated. Pass, it was 5d6 damage. Now it just deals damage.
1. How was disintegrate altered?
I thought you meant from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
I remember the insta-kill version from what I beleive was Baldur's Gate. It was the only way I could beat that dragon after I came out of some temple. I would keep restarting the game until he failed his save.
Death Ward stopped it, and yes, every self-respecting high level had death ward on, so there - no death. But damage spells still did damage.
Therein lies part of the problem with death spells. Every self-respecting PC or NPC had a death ward to cancel it out and combat would get resolved with damage-inflicting attacks anyway, so why bother with death spells in the first place? It became redundant.
Personally, I still like SoD spells / attacks and plan to house-rule them available to specific classes like necromancers and clerics with the death domain. Death should mean death, but only to those who know how to wield it properly.
Hi all, this is my first post.
I just wondered if "flesh to stone" is more dangerous than "finger of death".
And in this case, why "finger of death" is 7th level and "flesh to stone" 6th.
I precise I'm a beginner.
Welcome to the boards, Tristan.
Flesh to stone is not as dangerous as finger of death because of one reason: the potential "death" from the latter spell. Yes, getting turned to stone can just as well be a death sentence in certain situations, but the difference is how a character can be saved from it. Break enchantment or stone to flesh both remove petrification and both require only a standard action to cast. So a petrified character can be saved and back in battle within a round, possibly even on the same round he/she was petrified. In a combat situation this gives the entire party a better chance to survive the fight.
If the same character misses his save and is killed from a finger of death, he or she is done until a raise dead, resurrection or similar spell is cast. This can usually only be done outside of combat and takes at least one minute to cast, so even if a spellcaster tries it during combat its going to be extremely difficult and makes things even harder on the rest of the party because now two characters are out.
So to answer your question, finger of death is a higher level spell because of its potential to kill and the consequences this will have on the rest of the party.
Hi all, this is my first post.
I just wondered if "flesh to stone" is more dangerous than "finger of death".
And in this case, why "finger of death" is 7th level and "flesh to stone" 6th.
I precise I'm a beginner.
Welcome to the boards, Tristan.
Flesh to stone is not as dangerous as finger of death because of one reason: the potential "death" from the latter spell. Yes, getting turned to stone can just as well be a death sentence in certain situations, but the difference is how a character can be saved from it. Break enchantment or stone to flesh both remove petrification and both require only a standard action to cast. So a petrified character can be saved and back in battle within a round, possibly even on the same round he/she was petrified. In a combat situation this gives the entire party a better chance to survive the fight.
If the same character misses his save and is killed from a finger of death, he or she is done until a raise dead, resurrection or similar spell is cast. This can usually only be done outside of combat and takes at least one minute to cast, so even if a spellcaster tries it during combat its going to be extremely difficult and makes things even harder on the rest of the party because now two characters are out.
So to answer your question, finger of death is a higher level spell because of its potential to kill and the consequences this will have on the rest of the party.
Death can be undone by a number of spells. If you get changed to a statue and broken you will need more than a raise dead or resurrection spell
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Death can be undone by a number of spells. If you get changed to a statue and broken you will need more than a raise dead or resurrection spell
Yeah, you'll need a [/i]mending[/i] spell or three first.
This spell repairs damaged objects, restoring 1d4 hit points to the object. If the object has the broken condition, this condition is removed if the object is restored to at least half its original hit points
;-)
Seriously though, Break Enchantment no longer reverses petrification. Also Death attacks have the bonus of putting them beyond the reach of Raise dead.
Save or Die spells and effects are artifacts of an older day of AD&D imho, and there's the rub. I started playing in the late 80s, and the games I played rarely had "you pass you die" mechanics. They did have plenty of "you run out of hit points, you're dead" mechanics.
There is something to a sense of fairness and choice that is being deferred to here. When people play cards, they quickly understand that the hand you're dealt is impartial, and it can give you good and bad hands that you are then responsible for playing out. If you loose, it's not the dealer's fault, or your own, it's the game.
The DM is not the dealer when SoD is involved. This monster / antagonists was put into the mix, on purpose, with this stated consequences.
- DM points at player
- Players rolls a die
- If the die rolls poorly, player's fun is over instantly
Now the savvy among you will say that damage is the same string here, and you're right. Except there are ways to mitigate damage coming in that may reflect the nature of the character being targeted. A Ring of Regeneration to heal the character's broken body as they lie gasping for life after the deadly spell, or some Potion long preserved for just such a life or death situation. Damage maintains the feeling of choice and fairness, and removes the "I kill you" sentiment from the hands of the DM. It's an illusion, for certain†, but that's part of games.
There is also the issue of how does a spell just "kill" someone? There are too many ways to stop the life of a human being to ever list, but most of them involve trauma, not snuffing life-force. Damage is a good way to simulate this. Naturally, spells should exist to simulate the "I mangle your soul" spells, and they do; a good chunk of the Necromancy spells do just that. And then there's Power Word Kill, the ultimate "and you die" spell. It's a level 9, it's nasty and there's next to no way to avoid it (aside from 101+ current hit points or a Death Ward††).
The existence of "you die" spells can change the balance of power quickly in a world into wizard's hands (Avada Kedavra comes to mind, and that one you would at least get a Reflex save against). The loveliness of giving wizards the raw power to slay mortals on the spot is tempting. And pointless; they have it. A decent wizard can kill and peasant, bishop or king by snapping their fingers, and never need to know Power Word Kill. The PCs are anything but normal people. They are head and shoulders above most mortals, and a wizard should not lightly be able to slay them. But it's not impossible at all. Likewise, the best Fighter in the world can crush any foe with blade or bow. They can fell the king, peasant or bishop with a single swing or loose of his weapon. Would we want to give the Fighter a "Cleave Asunder" ability in their class? They penetrate your AC and you die?
I don't think Save or Die is dumb. I think the lack of spells that just outright kill you, no matter what, is not a problem in this or any game. And if death is becoming trivial, fix it. It's your game, play around with some of the conditions on Resurrection and you've fixed that problem. Or, make it rare as heck, and if/when a PC gets it, make their Deity give them quests to perform in service each time this awesome power is used. Make conditions on it, like "the one being restored must worship me from now on"...
Always, always, own the game you bought.
*It's also a tough part of being a DM is being just impartial enough to attack the right character. Using one of these spells on your best friend or *gulp* your partner at the table can be hard... or fun!
**And if the target has more than 101 hit points, hit them with stuff until they don't. Any self-respecting wizard of such calibre has minions. Voldemort even had minions! In the case of Death Wards, wouldn't a wizard who enjoys killing people with magic think of starting a fight with Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic? I would... get rid of those pesky spells of protection to allow me to mangle them with impunity.
Save or Die spells and effects are artifacts of an older day of AD&D imho, and there's the rub. I started playing in the late 80s, and the games I played rarely had "you pass you die" mechanics. They did have plenty of "you run out of hit points, you're dead" mechanics.
There is something to a sense of fairness and choice that is being deferred to here. When people play cards, they quickly understand that the hand you're dealt is impartial, and it can give you good and bad hands that you are then responsible for playing out. If you loose, it's not the dealer's fault, or your own, it's the game.
The DM is not the dealer when SoD is involved. This monster / antagonists was put into the mix, on purpose, with this stated consequences.
- DM points at player
- Players rolls a die
- If the die rolls poorly, player's fun is over instantly
Now the savvy among you will say that damage is the same string here, and you're right. Except there are ways to mitigate damage coming in that may reflect the nature of the character being targeted. A Ring of Regeneration to heal the character's broken body as they lie gasping for life after the deadly spell, or some Potion long preserved for just such a life or death situation. Damage maintains the feeling of choice and fairness, and removes the "I kill you" sentiment from the hands of the DM. It's an illusion, for certain†, but that's part of games.
I would just like to point out that SoD effects are likewise able to be mitigated. Anything that improves saving throws (resistance bonuses, luck bonuses, morale bonuses like those from heroism), as well as a multitude of spell effects. Death ward becomes available as a 4th level spell, while Save or Dies don't really begin looking good until 7th level (there is phantasmal killer but it requires 2 saves + SR and is mind-affecting and I think a fear effect).
Worse yet, they didn't even remove Save or Dies from a gameplay standpoint. Baleful Polymorph and Flesh to Stone are still effectively save-or-lose, but now the actual spells meant to do some slaying are not slaying.
So really, it's kind of a pointless nerf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 year old thread, Ash?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Actually, the biggest change in how character death is handled is the spell Breath of Life. My character died twice in as many rounds, and both times that spell was used to bring him back into the fight. Granted, the spellcaster was casting in melee and there was a chance they would fail. But I really didn't feel any of the suspense and fear when I fell, I did feel sad though that there wasn't going to be a quest to raise my character.
2 year old thread, Ash?
Oh snap! I didn't even realize it was. I found this thread through a link, and didn't realize it was so old. I guess I failed my Perception check on this one. ^.^"
No worries, I've done it too.
I just wondered if the irony of the thread title was intentional or what...
One of the assertions I have heard is that the amount of damage that death spells do is still enough to kill creatures. I have omitted NPCs from this list, as the hp of a given NPC can vary wildly based on their equipment and whatnot. But when I flip through the Bestiary, it seems that the death spells can't kill level-appropriate monsters on their own.Should they? Why or why not?I think they should be able to do it because high level death spells are basically the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch--a very high powered but limited weapon, and when it's gone, it's gone. Or at least gone for the day.
Turning them into direct damage basically just makes them Magic Missile, but not even as good as Magic Missile, because Magic Missile doesn't have a save.
But then you ruin everyone's fun. There is nothing more anticlimatic than one player wishing initiative, killing the bad guy, then telling the other players thank you fro dropping by to watch him be awesome. The current system of wearing the bad guy down through team work is much more fun. Also, death effects can still kill something outright, you just need to be more powerful than the target (which is how it works in literature, the death giver is always more powerful).
Also, your holy hand grenade reference doesn't really help your case. That damned bunny fought off an army (which had reduced its hit points) before it faced the holy hand grenade (a hit point draining death effect). :P
One of the assertions I have heard is that the amount of damage that death spells do is still enough to kill creatures. I have omitted NPCs from this list, as the hp of a given NPC can vary wildly based on their equipment and whatnot. But when I flip through the Bestiary, it seems that the death spells can't kill level-appropriate monsters on their own.Should they? Why or why not?I think they should be able to do it because high level death spells are basically the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch--a very high powered but limited weapon, and when it's gone, it's gone. Or at least gone for the day.
Turning them into direct damage basically just makes them Magic Missile, but not even as good as Magic Missile, because Magic Missile doesn't have a save.
But then you ruin everyone's fun. There is nothing more anticlimatic than one player wishing initiative, killing the bad guy, then telling the other players thank you fro dropping by to watch him be awesome. The current system of wearing the bad guy down through team work is much more fun. Also, death effects can still kill something outright, you just need to be more powerful than the target (which is how it works in literature, the death giver is always more powerful).
Also, your holy hand grenade reference doesn't really help your case. That damned bunny fought off an army (which had reduced its hit points) before it faced the holy hand grenade (a hit point draining death effect). :P
And for some groups, it's fun to watch the caster wind up and pitch and knock the bad guy flat. Why? Because everyone knows that sooner or later they'll get a chance to shine, that not every monster will fall to a SoD, not every problem should be solved with a spell, etc.
I'd just like to remind everyone that Necromancy SoDs have been redeemed with Suffocation and Mass Suffocation.
carry on :D
(I know, they are technically not save or die, but pretty much close)
I'd just like to remind everyone that Necromancy SoDs have been redeemed with Suffocation and Mass Suffocation.
carry on :D
(I know, they are technically not save or die, but pretty much close)
automatic staggering. It crushes a lot of enemies, who cares of the suffocation.
The thing about Lathiira's list of beasties (which to be fair is from two years ago, but it got brought up) whose HP >130 HP is that the majority of them are outsiders or other powerful creatures that you are and should be highly unlikely to be able to kill in one blow--whether you're a fighter who's critting with a Greater Vital Strike or a caster blowing their most powerful damage dealing spell. Nor should they be, IMHO. If you have an actually good chance of killing, say, a marilith with one spell, then something's not quite right.
What those beasties are good at is forcing good party tactics and letting everyone get to shine--if the warrior types whittle down the big bad, field controllers of all types limit its movements, and the casters de buff it, and THEN a caster finishes it off with a finger of death (having knocked him down enough hit points that even if he saves, it can still kill it), that's, IMHO, what a good fight in Pathfinder looks like. Sure, sometimes someone is going to get something incredible off and just knock something flat, but it should be very rare, a result of planning and build and luck, not a standard issue ability handed out to all casters of a certain ability. It's great in a work of static fiction to have a mega caster just point at everything and make it die, but not so much in a cooperative, interactive game, in my personal opinion.
And that said, those casters who CAN cast finger of death can of course actually point at the majority of the population and make them die. A caster who wanted to go on a power trip and drop any and all who got in his way could indeed successfully do so to most people. The high lords of realms of pure evil and what have you are going to be the exception, because they're they high lords of realms of pure evil---and they, too, can normally point at things and make them die, and the high level adventurer caster will frustrate the high lord of realms of pure evil in that the high lord etc. can't easily do that to the adventurer, as matter of fact. There shouldn't be an easy "win button" to a confrontation like that (although the spell SHOULD still be useful in HURTING the thing).
AND that said, spells like finger of death and the like should do well against classed NPCs, even those who are very high level, and those resources are likely best spent on those kind of enemies. Players need to bear in mind that the reverse of course is true---they're likely to be more susceptible than certain creatures of legend. Which leads me to the reason as a GM I don't really like save or die spells---honestly, at the end of the day, I don't care much if my players use them (especially if it's to blast mooks away ((bear in mind in the campaign I'm running, "mooks" are like CR 10-14))), but I don't like using them on my players. "You rolled a 1? You're dead, sucks to be you, yep even though you were at full hit points three seconds to you." I have no fun as a GM saying stuff like that, that's just me. (This actually happened in the campaign I ran--trapfinder rolled a 1 on a destruction trap. I actually fudged it so he could easily be raised because frankly it would have effed up gameplay in so many ways if the character was suddenly a pile of ash--and my fault for picking a trap hastily without thinking of the consequences). But if I refrain from using the resources available to me... figuring out what to do instead... eh. I just don't like it. It's workable around, I just wish I didn't have to, that's all.
And this is a tangent, but I feel like ranting... my other issue with save or something spells is with some of them, what I really don't like is the SAVE or part, not the "suck/die/feel a bit unfortunate" part. Most of the SOD spells don't actually have this problem--you always at least do some damage with most of them, so they will always have some level of usefulness (YMMV on how useful, to be fair). But save or sucks like stone to flesh? People tout that as how awesome it is all the time. I just know that if I actually tried to use it, the one time it would be the most important for it to work is the one time the enemy rolls a 20 on its save. Screw probability and statistics, I know how my luck works in these matters. And when a spell like that fails... it just fails. You wasted a slot. Bleh. I'd rather most spells always be able to do something, since the challenge of playing casters effectively is trying to manage resources. It just makes it more frustrating when some of those resources might just go poof without any value. For example, if stone to flesh was easy to save against, but always did something like, say slowed the target even if they saved (the idea being that the petrification set in part way, however temporarily), then I would find a spell like that worth it for my particular purposes. That's just me, I know, but there we are.
The thing about Lathiira's list of beasties (which to be fair is from two years ago, but it got brought up) whose HP >130 HP is that the majority of them are outsiders or other powerful creatures that you are and should be highly unlikely to be able to kill in one blow--whether you're a fighter who's critting with a Greater Vital Strike or a caster blowing their most powerful damage dealing spell. Nor should they be, IMHO. If you have an actually good chance of killing, say, a marilith with one spell, then something's not quite right.
What those beasties are good at is forcing good party tactics and letting everyone get to shine--if the warrior types whittle down the big bad, field controllers of all types limit its movements, and the casters de buff it, and THEN a caster finishes it off with a finger of death (having knocked him down enough hit points that even if he saves, it can still kill it), that's, IMHO, what a good fight in Pathfinder looks like. Sure, sometimes someone is going to get something incredible off and just knock something flat, but it should be very rare, a result of planning and build and luck, not a standard issue ability handed out to all casters of a certain ability. It's great in a work of static fiction to have a mega caster just point at everything and make it die, but not so much in a cooperative, interactive game, in my personal opinion.
And that said, those casters who CAN cast finger of death can of course actually point at the majority of the population and make them die. A caster who wanted to go on a power trip and drop any and all who got in his way could indeed successfully do so to most people. The high lords of realms of pure evil and what have you are going to be the exception, because they're they high lords of realms of pure evil---and they, too, can normally point at things and make them die, and the high level adventurer caster will frustrate the high lord of realms of pure evil in that the high lord etc. can't easily do that to the adventurer, as matter of fact. There shouldn't be an easy "win button" to a confrontation like that (although the spell SHOULD still be useful in HURTING the thing).
AND that said, spells like finger of death and the like should do well against classed NPCs, even those who are very high level, and those resources are likely best spent on those kind of enemies. Players need to bear in mind that the reverse of course is true---they're likely to be more susceptible than certain creatures of legend. Which leads me to the reason as a GM I don't really like save or die spells---honestly, at the end of the day, I don't care much if my players use them (especially if it's to blast mooks away ((bear in mind in the campaign I'm running, "mooks" are like CR 10-14))), but I don't like using them on my players. "You rolled a 1? You're dead, sucks to be you, yep even though you were at full hit points three seconds to you." I have no fun as a GM saying stuff like that, that's just me. (This actually happened in the campaign I ran--trapfinder rolled a 1 on a destruction trap. I actually fudged it so he could easily be raised because frankly it would have effed up gameplay in so many ways if the character was suddenly a pile of ash--and my fault for picking a trap hastily without thinking of the consequences). But if I refrain from using the resources available to me... figuring out what to do instead... eh. I just don't like it. It's workable around, I just wish I didn't have to, that's all.
Lots of good stuff here.
A couple points. First is the relationship of mooks to SoD. Some SoD can work well against mooks. A circle of death can slaughter the mooks you face at 11th level when you get it, or at least a few of them. But at higher levels, that breaks down. Circle of death fails completely, for example. Mooks as we fight them are outsiders. Outsiders that can even withstand the toughest of spells as mooks, if you're not optimized for them. For example, in one dramatic fight recently, we fought 5 glabrezu and one of the most powerful clerics around. My wail of the banshee hit them, and 2 failed saves among the glabrezu. It didn't clear them out; it hurt them a lot, but they still needed some help to get knocked off. Those that made their saves were of course unaffected, further illustrating the problem of save negates type effects for these spells. Destruction was later ineffective against those same mooks, as well as many others.
Another point is resource management, of a sort. At the level when you get finger of death or destruction, you may have 2-3 spell slots for 7th level spells. Each one is your most potent magic. But that magic fails to feel potent if opponents make their saves; at that point, it feels ineffectual. You also only get so many of those slots, so they need to count. Yet even if you optimize to the point where monsters fail the saves routinely, they'll still be standing; you'll have shaved a round off of the battle or two. Not everyone optimizes that much, in which case your most potent spells do nothing (finger of death) or are worth 1-2 hits from the fighter (destruction). Even when you've got 9th level spells available, those spells still come up in everyday use and need to be effective, yet they aren't. Sure, they're lower level spells, but if they don't work well when you get them, by this time they could be expected to be nigh-useless.
Now, you are quite right about the effects of these spells against NPCs, because NPCs don't all have 200+hp at this point in the game, so a failed save can blast someone into the grave posthaste. That part was left out of the original analysis because I thought it was obvious at the time, but it bears saying here.
I also understand the flip side of things regarding these spells and their effect on player fun, either when PCs get their souls crushed by one or if a climatic battle is ended before it starts to a well-timed SoD.
These spells will let PCs run roughshod over the everyday man. But so does fireball. Also, one of the main guidelines of the game is that PCs face level-appropriate foes. At high levels, the commoners and experts on the street don't qualify. They can also be easily enough cleared out with a few evocations, maybe a fear spell. That fireball will kill more than a few of them. Only a circle of death or wail of the banshee could compete. Yet if those commoners are accounted for, one in 20 will live through wail of the banshee, yet none can survive the fireball!
Overall, there are several issues here that need sorted out and examined regarding saving throws, the damage now dealt through these spells, and expectations regarding the power of these spells when compared to other spells. I'd be more inclined toward removing them entirely at this point than to keep them in the game, tradition or no, backwards compatibility or no, just because they really no longer feel like "death" magic to me, but rather poor evocations with less flash instead.
Power Word Kill ?Ahhhhhhhh, I didn't see that they didn't change that one. Thanks!
????
My point is that Finger of Death does a bare minimum of 130 hp of damage, almost always enough to kill a creature with 100 hp (as Power Word Kill does). So the only real differences are: (a) one has a save and one doesn't, and (b) one is useful on creatures with > 100 hp and one isn't.
I agree with Hogarth here... The original post says "if they fail thier save..." So I'm curious what the difference is?
Power word kill doesn't work on anyone with 101 hitpoints... Finger of Death does 130 damage 'if you fail your save'... Sooo Why is one annoying, but the other ok? Either will kill you dead if your under 101 hp.. In fact the 9th level vs 7th level aspect makes me like the FoD a bit more...
Honeslty I'm not all that fond of the 'easy ressurections' these games promote... We've only got ONE group with a priestess high enough for those things... and it DOES takes away the 'danger' of many situations...
To the point where the DM has upped his game a bit in TARGETING her... There was a VERY close call with a finger of Death (in 2nd edition) that BARELY made her save...
Then there was the next game where my... monk I guess wasfighting someone who kept trying to slap him with a 'mysterious amulet' He has an AMAZING AC, so he didn't get hit... Only to find out that the amulet housed a 'sphere of annialation'...
I can still here the words 'RESSURECT THAT!!!' echoing in my brain.... O.o
Each one is your most potent magic. But that magic fails to feel potent if opponents make their saves; at that point, it feels ineffectual.
I agree completely. I had a sorcerer witch that relied on save or dies/screws and had amazingly high DCs for her level. She RARELY took anyone out of a fight however, because my GM is in bed with the dice gods.
Out of game it was frustrating. In game, the other characters (PCs and NPCs alike) openly mocked my character for being useless. "Stop mumbling gibberish and pointing your fingers and pick up a sword already!"
Horrible, horrible feeling.
For my taste there are still too many SoD spells in the game. Phantasmal Killer, Power Word: Kill and Flesh to Stone. Basically Baleful Polymorph, too, if we are going to get technical about it. I am sure I am still forgetting some.
The whole game has gone soft on PCs!
I remember when a fighter had less than a hundred HPs at tenth level and only did d8+5 damage and having AC -7 was *really* something.Level Drain, pah! Only gain a few tempory negative levels now...Death is nothing just get raised and greater restoration...No CON lose, nothing...
*mutters and shuffles off to get pipe and slippers*
You are correct
Balance has certainly weakened spells 'that may have a bad affect on others'Its all about buffing now and helping 'the swords' do the damage
A couple points. First is the relationship of mooks to SoD. Some SoD can work well against mooks. A circle of death can slaughter the mooks you face at 11th level when you get it, or at least a few of them. But at higher levels, that breaks down. Circle of death fails completely, for example. Mooks as we fight them are outsiders. Outsiders that can even withstand the toughest of spells as mooks, if you're not optimized for them. For example, in one dramatic fight recently, we fought 5 glabrezu and one of the most powerful clerics around. My wail of the banshee hit them, and 2 failed saves among the glabrezu. It didn't clear them out; it hurt them a lot, but they still needed some help to get knocked off. Those that made their saves were of course unaffected, further illustrating the problem of save negates type effects for these spells. Destruction was later ineffective against those same mooks, as well as many others.
Referring to my game specifically, for others reading:
... those were not mooks. That was an extremely difficult encounter designed to f~$! up your shit. And the party defeated them with a courageous and heroic use of tactics.
The vrocks, the guards, the various undead, a few elementals, the drow fight, etc. Those were the mooks (I recall you did destruction the drow priestess--who was the one non-mook in that fight--to great effect, which was awesome and cinematic). Note I listed 1 group of outsiders in that list (you will see more outsider "mooks" by the time the campaign ends but those should be obvious).
Another point is resource management, of a sort. At the level when you get finger of death or destruction, you may have 2-3 spell slots for 7th level spells.
I think that's at least in part a broader issue of the clerics' spell design for higher levels in general, and that some of the death-damage spells probably should have been dropped a spell level since the insta-death effect got removed. Or the spell should have been re-jiggered in a different way (spell does CON damage instead of HP damage, for example).
Each one is your most potent magic. But that magic fails to feel potent if opponents make their saves; at that point, it feels ineffectual. You also only get so many of those slots, so they need to count. Yet even if you optimize to the point where monsters fail the saves routinely, they'll still be standing; you'll have shaved a round off of the battle or two. Not everyone optimizes that much, in which case your most potent spells do nothing (finger of death) or are worth 1-2 hits from the fighter (destruction). Even when you've got 9th level spells available, those spells still come up in everyday use and need to be effective, yet they aren't. Sure, they're lower level spells, but if they don't work well when you get them, by this time they could be expected to be nigh-useless.
But this goes back to the idea that in a high-powered fight, no one person should have the "win-button" spell. You work the spells that someone has the potential to drop a big bad by pointing their finger at them.... I don't know, as a GM, I would rather deal with having the PF Core Rulebook shoved up my ass than have to deal with the narrative ramifications of that---most GMs would end up just finding more elaborate ways from keeping the win-button spell from being effective (waves of monsters, protection spells, using only monsters immune to death effects, etc. and then that stops being fun for the player). Eventually both the GM and player stop having fun and the point is lost.
But this may just mean again that the high level spell designs need more thought put into them. For example, any high level spell that deals HP damage should also have an additional effect attached (for example, a beam of pure negative energy, even if you save against it and it doesn't kill you, should leave you fatigued or frightened or something). Ability damage/drain/penalties would also be fantastic, effective, and appropriate (as evidenced as the spell I have seen put the most fear into my players wasn't wail of the banshee, but waves of exhaustion). Again, that way you don't feel like you wasted your time memorizing the spell, and the spell has power in both direct (HP damage) and indirect (status effects) ways.
Running a high level campaign, it becomes apparent to me how much the higher level spells were designed to be used by NPCs to make the PCs' day a bad one, but not so much ones that make the PCs feel good about themselves (outside of a few, specific spells that everyone always oohs and ahs over). And this is a design disconnect for me here---on one hand, I get that most campaigns are low to mid level, and I even remember seeing several posts by James Jacobs saying most high level abilities are going to be used by powerful NPCs more than players. On the other hand, especially in Pathfinder, some of the rewards for sticking with a class aren't felt until you get over level 10: many class abilities improve with character level (and particularly, a lot of the bloodline/domain/school powers don't really get a lot of oomph to them until you've put a few levels into them. Even though "8" is the magic number to gain certain higher level abilities, you need more class levels to see them perform well). And this idea culminates in the level 20 capstone (purportedly one of the reasons you're supposed to feel good about playing single class if you choose to do so). Archetypes are also like this--most of them don't really come to fruition till you've put a lot of levels into them. So either players are supposed to look at all these high level abilities and feel excited about using them, or players get to look at all these abilities and then realize they will never, ever get to use them, they're meant to be the GM's toys.
And then with some abilities--particularly spells--they turn out to be not as hot as you'd hope they'd be (SOD spells).
So this IMO is going into a pretty deep design issue.
These spells will let PCs run roughshod over the everyday man. But so does fireball. Also, one of the main guidelines of the game is that PCs face level-appropriate foes. At high levels, the commoners and experts on the street don't qualify. They can also be easily enough cleared out with a few evocations, maybe a fear spell. That fireball will kill more than a few of them. Only a circle of death or wail of the banshee could compete. Yet if those commoners are accounted for, one in 20 will live through wail of the banshee, yet none can survive the fireball!
Plus fireball will destroy the surrounding area, and wail of the banshee won't. Which I think is in part a design issue of fireball. ;)
Overall, there are several issues here that need sorted out and examined regarding saving throws, the damage now dealt through these spells, and expectations regarding the power of these spells when compared to other spells. I'd be more inclined toward removing them entirely at this point than to keep them in the game, tradition or no, backwards compatibility or no, just because they really no longer feel like "death" magic to me, but rather poor evocations with less flash instead.
That, I definitely hear you on. From a thematic standpoint, a spell called finger of death should be directly related to death. And fingers. If it's really just "generic laser beam spell that hurts a lot" then call it "finger of zap" or "ray of hurting".
Referring to my game specifically, for others reading:
... those were not mooks. That was an extremely difficult encounter designed to f**@ up your s*@+. And the party defeated them with a courageous and heroic use of tactics.
The vrocks, the guards, the various undead, a few elementals, the drow fight, etc. Those were the mooks (I recall you did destruction the drow priestess--who was the one non-mook in that fight--to great effect, which was awesome and cinematic). Note I listed 1 group of outsiders in that list (you will see more outsider "mooks" by the time the campaign ends but those should be obvious).
Fair enough. I stand corrected on the hierarchy of bad guys we've fought :)
I think that's at least in part a broader issue of the clerics' spell design for higher levels in general, and that some of the death-damage spells probably should have been dropped a spell level since the insta-death effect got removed. Or the spell should have been re-jiggered in a different way (spell does CON damage instead of HP damage, for example).
Which would work well.
But this may just mean again that the high level spell designs need more thought put into them. For example, any high level spell that deals HP damage should also have an additional effect attached (for example, a beam of pure negative energy, even if you save against it and it doesn't kill you, should leave you fatigued or frightened or something). Ability damage/drain/penalties would also be fantastic, effective, and appropriate (as evidenced as the spell I have seen put the most fear into my players wasn't wail of the banshee, but waves of exhaustion). Again, that way you don't feel like you wasted your time memorizing the spell, and the spell has power in both direct (HP damage) and indirect (status effects) ways.
Waves of exhaustion scares us because there's almost no way to preemptively protect against it, no save, and curing the whole party of exhaustion requires a) 2 lesser restorations per person, b) one restoration per person, c) one heal per person, or d) one mass heal. Despite all that, I'd love to have that on the cleric spell list, not just as a domain spell. Even with a save to create fatigue, I'd like it. It's a great debuffing spell.
Waves of exhaustion scares us because there's almost no way to preemptively protect against it, no save, and curing the whole party of exhaustion requires a) 2 lesser restorations per person, b) one restoration per person, c) one heal per person, or d) one mass heal. Despite all that, I'd love to have that on the cleric spell list, not just as a domain spell. Even with a save to create fatigue, I'd like it. It's a great debuffing spell.
Waves of Exhaustion
School necromancy; Level sorcerer/wizard 7
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range 60 ft.
Area cone-shaped burst
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw no; Spell Resistance yes
Waves of negative energy cause all living creatures in the spell's area to become exhausted. This spell has no effect on a creature that is already exhausted.
Death Ward
School necromancy; Level cleric 4, druid 5, paladin 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range touch
Target living creature touched
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
The subject gains a +4 morale bonus on saves against all death spells and magical death effects. The subject is granted a save to negate such effects even if one is not normally allowed. The subject is immune to energy drain and any negative energy effects, including channeled negative energy.
This spell does not remove negative levels that the subject has already gained, but it does remove the penalties from negative levels for the duration of its effect.
Death ward does not protect against other sorts of attacks, even if those attacks might be lethal.
EDIT: Since death ward is 4th, and waves of exhaustion 7th, death ward wins hard. Doubly so when it also blocks almost every other offensive necromancy spell, level drain, and provides a passive +4 save bonus vs death effects. It also prevented Shadow strength drain, last I checked.
Ashiel, the first line in most of the paragraphs on spells and magic doodads is descriptive; we treat it as such. Even if it were not, I can't maintain death ward 24/7 (but I really wish I could). Didn't even know the monster that hit us with it could do it (despite my maximum ranks in Knowledge (planes), I rolled poorly on a skill check and the belier was definitely a rare critter, so knowing that fact was unlikely). I'll remember it for the future though.
Ashiel, the first line in most of the paragraphs on spells and magic doodads is descriptive; we treat it as such. Even if it were not, I can't maintain death ward 24/7 (but I really wish I could). Didn't even know the monster that hit us with it could do it (despite my maximum ranks in Knowledge (planes), I rolled poorly on a skill check and the belier was definitely a rare critter, so knowing that fact was unlikely). I'll remember it for the future though.
The description explains how it works. It says negative energy is what causes it, death ward says it prevents anything caused by negative energy. Take it for what you will, I guess.
As for having death ward up 24/7...
Well I can understand the difficulties of getting it up 24/7. It would cost +168,000 gp to add it to your armor as a continuous effect (like energy resistance armors), and that's just far too prohibitive for most characters (though in some campaigns, it just might be worth crafting yourself).
Death Ward is a good enough buff, however, that you should try to keep it up in any situation where you might be in danger. 24/7 is difficult, but 7 minute bursts (such as from an x/day item) can save your life if you get the chance to use it.
Save or Die/Suck had some certain charm in themselves...
From one of our sessions (D&D 3.0):
Evil mage casts disintegrate targeting party Monk.
Monk: It's O.K. I have high Fortitude save. <rolls one or two on die>
Zap. Someone prepares small bag and a broom.
Our arrogant Wizard (whos weasel familar I played): I get rid of that pathetic excuse of a mage! <casts flesh to stone>
As it could be expected in such situation hostile wizard rolled natural 20 and tried to run. Next round my minion... I mean my master *cough-cough* cast another flesh to stone freezing him for interrogation later (which failed due to other reasons, mostly another flesh to stone cast at an inappropriate moment).
Ashiel, the first line in most of the paragraphs on spells and magic doodads is descriptive; we treat it as such. Even if it were not, I can't maintain death ward 24/7 (but I really wish I could). Didn't even know the monster that hit us with it could do it (despite my maximum ranks in Knowledge (planes), I rolled poorly on a skill check and the belier was definitely a rare critter, so knowing that fact was unlikely). I'll remember it for the future though.The description explains how it works. It says negative energy is what causes it, death ward says it prevents anything caused by negative energy. Take it for what you will, I guess.
As for having death ward up 24/7...
Well I can understand the difficulties of getting it up 24/7. It would cost +168,000 gp to add it to your armor as a continuous effect (like energy resistance armors), and that's just far too prohibitive for most characters (though in some campaigns, it just might be worth crafting yourself).Death Ward is a good enough buff, however, that you should try to keep it up in any situation where you might be in danger. 24/7 is difficult, but 7 minute bursts (such as from an x/day item) can save your life if you get the chance to use it.
You're quite correct about the description; I had to look up both spells to be sure. Sorry about that.
It's definitely a good buff to have up. After a cathedral worth of undead, it looks even better in our game. I've yet to find a good way to keep buffs with 1 min./lvl durations up as long as I need to in Pathfinder, but that's a separate issue.
No worries. ^-^
It is indeed a great buff. I try to get it on armor at least 1/day (7 minutes / day) by mid levels (+16,800 gp market price, or +8,400 crafted) because it can be a life-saver when dealing with certain enemies (though having a cleric to cast it for you is ideal).
Also, Cathedral full of undead? Yikes! That could get nasty fast. Undead are pretty varied, so I could imagine you fighting everything from mindless sentries (skeletons/zombies) to much more frightening fare (wights, shadows, wraiths, etc). Death ward is definitely good, and hide from undead practically broken in such cases. ☺
Currently, if you use a death spell against somebody who's somewhat weaker than you, he will probably die.
If you use a death spell against somebody who's as powerful or more so than you, he probably won't die.
Sounds about right to me.
Part of the problem is the hit point system itself. There are no real consequences to losing hit points until you run out; whether you have 100 or just 1, you can act exactly the same, can do all the same actions. When the Death spells turned into Hp damage, they effectively became ineffective; a fighter can do the same thing, probably with a higher success rate, so why bother casting the spell?
I would prefer all the death spells ( and really, all offensive spells) to have secondary effects attached to them, other than a pathetically small hp damage. That way, if the spell is saved against, at least it wasn't a total waste.
Currently, if you use a death spell against somebody who's somewhat weaker than you, he will probably die.
If you use a death spell against somebody who's as powerful or more so than you, he probably won't die.
Sounds about right to me.
Agreed.
Currently, if you use a death spell against somebody who's somewhat weaker than you, he will probably die.
If you use a death spell against somebody who's as powerful or more so than you, he probably won't die.
Sounds about right to me.
Actually, right now, this works with NPCs. Monsters, not so much. Weaker monsters don't die from these spells; they just look like a fighter full-attacked them, at most.
The funny thing is that a Fighter can often deal way more damage, and is far harder to ignore and/or resist than the spells. Let's see...
Round 1: Mage casts telekinesis and hurls the Fighter at the nearest enemy, causing minor damage to the enemy if it hits, and placing the fighter adjacent to the enemy regardless of the hit or not (all the while ignoring AoOs).
Fighter full attacks. Now at level 13 (when you get 7th level spells), the Fighter likely has an attack routine something like this:
Format: +hit/+damage
+4/+4 weapon (32,000 gp)
+3/+3 weapon training
+2/+4 weapon specialization line
+7/+7 24 strength (16 base, +3 levels, +5 item)
+13/+8/+2 base attack
+1 attack, haste.
-4/+12 power attack
Our weapon of choice shall be a greataxe just for giggles.
We have +26/+26/+21/+16 at 1d12+33 per swing (average 39.5).
Our target AC is 28 (CR 13 average)
We hit on a 2 (95%), 2(95%), 7 (70%), and 12 (45%).
Our average damage, without critical hits 120.475.
Our damage most likely pierces most damage reductions (pierces magic, silver/cold iron, and adamantine). Likewise, virtually nothing is outright immune to this sort of damage, short of swarms (which are also outright immune to targeted SoDs).
In short, a failed save would only deal about 130 damage, and even with a 50/50 chance to land it (assuming you pierce any defenses and the like), the damage per round would only be 65, and you just wasted a 7th level spell.
I'd definitely say they're underpowered. If it cannot wipe the sucker off the face of the earth on that failed save, it's not even worth bothering with for damage.
The funny thing is that a Fighter can often deal way more damage, and is far harder to ignore and/or resist than the spells. Let's see...
Round 1: Mage casts telekinesis and hurls the Fighter at the nearest enemy, causing minor damage to the enemy if it hits, and placing the fighter adjacent to the enemy regardless of the hit or not (all the while ignoring AoOs).
Fighter full attacks. Now at level 13 (when you get 7th level spells), the Fighter likely has an attack routine something like this:
Format: +hit/+damage
+4/+4 weapon (32,000 gp)
+3/+3 weapon training
+2/+4 weapon specialization line
+7/+7 24 strength (16 base, +3 levels, +5 item)
+13/+8/+2 base attack
+1 attack, haste.
-4/+12 power attackOur weapon of choice shall be a greataxe just for giggles.
We have +26/+26/+21/+16 at 1d12+33 per swing (average 39.5).
Our target AC is 28 (CR 13 average)
We hit on a 2 (95%), 2(95%), 7 (70%), and 12 (45%).
Our average damage, without critical hits 120.475.Our damage most likely pierces most damage reductions (pierces magic, silver/cold iron, and adamantine). Likewise, virtually nothing is outright immune to this sort of damage, short of swarms (which are also outright immune to targeted SoDs).
In short, a failed save would only deal about 130 damage, and even with a 50/50 chance to land it (assuming you pierce any defenses and the like), the damage per round would only be 65, and you just wasted a 7th level spell.
I'd definitely say they're underpowered. If it cannot wipe the sucker off the face of the earth on that failed save, it's not even worth bothering with for damage.
Comparing a relatively well built fighter to a crappily built spellcaster proves nothing. Yoiu say the spell has a 50/50, which makes me laugh, as at those levels you can jack up the DCs pretty easily to have a much higher chance of success.
I'm very much aware of how spell DCs scale. One of the last wizards I played specialized in Summoning and Save or Die spells, and this was in 3.x where SoD spells actually were worth something (because they actually killed things). She was heavily optimized, and used what most would probably consider cheese.
Tiefling, Starting Int 20.
Spellcasting Prodigy (+2 effective Int)
+5 Int from Levels
+5 Int from Wish abuse.
+6 Int from from item.
+2 Spell Focus / Greater Focus
Heighten Spell
That's 40 Int or +17 to the save DC.
A 9th level spell had a save DC of 36.
Turning things into statues was my favorite pass-time. For the record, however, our standard issue Balor has a 50% chance to dodge the spell via spell resistance, by default. Then the standard-issue Balor has a +29 Fortitude save before buffs, putting his chance at saving to a roll of 7+ (65% chance to save). The odds are in the Balor's favor that I just dropped a 9th level spell to do nada.
So if the Balor is actually buffed at all, or is slightly advanced (say it's a CR 21-23 boss encounter), the Balor could easily be buffed with death ward (4th level cleric spell, such as a cultist mook) and now have an 85% chance to avoid the spell, while also being completely immune to anything necromancy based.
Now for every -1 Int modifier I have, the % chance for him to save rises by +5%. Which means if you take away the non-core spellcasting prodigy, he has a 70%/90% chance to save. If I have to start with an 18 Int instead of 20, it's a 75%/95% chance to save. This is after Spell Resistance. Likewise, against NPCs, you have to deal with things like protection from spells (+40% to save), or spell turning (wait, you're asking me for a Fortitude save?).
This also is assuming that 3 feats were invested into this task (1 non-core, 2 core), and using your strongest spell level to end the Balor (AKA your big guns).
Meanwhile, the Fighter? Well he can easily do over 200+ damage per round. The DPR Olympics have noted this. That's also before counting any special abilities that occur on critical hits, or via weapon features (such as inflicting negative levels with your trust life-drinker).
EDIT: In fact, this was actually a critical point for my group's tactical considerations. Lowering SR and Fortitude saves were two major tactical goals. Our Fighter-type was assuredly the most reliable way (using his life-drinker), while things like fear effects were also prized (the party's sorcerer-lich could often pull this one off). Essentially, there was often a bit of setup to make sure the nail went into the coffin.
SoD spells pretty much level the playing field for high level wizards. Without them they are completely outclassed in combat by Fighters. Removing this and replacing it with straight damage massively disadvantages spellcasters IMO.
SoD's are a possible waste of an action. If the caster is trying to compete with the fighter with DPR then the fighter is going to be ahead, but killing and damaging(hp damage) are not always the best ways for a caster to go.
Will saves and Fort saves are the normal SoD spells, but most high level monsters have high saves against these saves making them less efficient than buffing or debuffing as an example.