They're DEATH spells after all, not "a lot of damage" spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're DEATH spells after all, not "a lot of damage" spells.
Because having a character die from 1 failed roll was considered bad in 3.5 D&D, so the spells changed in Pathfinder.
And I would hardly say "most death spells just do 10x caster level damage". Of the 25 official Pathfinder spells the Archive of Nethys lists as having the [death] descriptor, only 3 deal 10 damage/level (Finger of Death, Wail of the Banshee, destruction). Several more do kill on a failed save (bloatbomb, circle of death, death clutch, death knell, malediction, massacre, power word kill, symbol of death).
So in fact, there are more [death] spells that cause instant death (8) then there are that cause 10xlevel damage (3). Granted some of those instant-death spells only function under certain circumstances, like death knell.
To the OP: I feel your pain, my brother! I understand why they changed those spells, but still want my death magic to put critters down, period. I've jokingly called slay living "wound living" in game, it got dialed down so much. Same with destruction/finger of death but without funny renames.
That said, Jeraa and RoG both raise fair points. Dramatic tension doesn't work well when you just flat out kill the BBEG. Though strangely enough, a crossblooded orc sorcerer can do more damage with their blasting spells, probably with rider effects like dazing, and that's okay, they can kill everything that way. But my death spells kill people, even a single target, for the same spell slot? That's like pulling the tarrasque's teeth....
I really didnt like the change at first, but it is less one way to avoid an anticlimatic ending to a boss fight, and I Can use them against players more.
In addition if one of them does kill someone that person is still has to use something better than raise dead to come back so they(death spells) still have some teeth.
I appreciated the change to disintegrate (although I think that one came before pathfinder) That spell always just seemed like a lower level death spell that was better then most higher level ones until it started doing damage instead.
I appreciated the change to disintegrate (although I think that one came before pathfinder) That spell always just seemed like a lower level death spell that was better then most higher level ones until it started doing damage instead.i think i like it better as a damage spell, that way i can stack static damage per die and make it even deadlier and probably better then a death effect as most things immune to death effects are not immune to disintegrate
Yeah Exactly!
Yeah I think it is still quite the strong spell. especially for its level compared to other spells that do similar things.
Because against an equal level opponent, barring max rolls (or just really good rolls) or an obscene Con focus, that's basically still death. It's just not instant death against monsters. And it prevents the "finger of death machinegun", where you just keep spamming save or dies with the battle cry "You have to roll a 1 sometime!".
Against monsters, those spells don't work well; did the analysis a long time ago, you're right.
Against NPCs: if they have a poor Fort save then they likely have the poor hp to fall over or nearly fall over from the hit. Depending on how hp roll in a group, presence of Big Six items/automatic bonus progression, etc. of course.
If you're spamming 7th level spells...you likely have things like time stop that are a whole lot worse.
I appreciated the change to disintegrate (although I think that one came before pathfinder) That spell always just seemed like a lower level death spell that was better then most higher level ones until it started doing damage instead.i think i like it better as a damage spell, that way i can stack static damage per die and make it even deadlier and probably better then a death effect as most things immune to death effects are not immune to disintegrate
Disintegrate didnt change from 3.5 to Pathfinder. I don't know what it was like in 3.0. In 2nd edition I think it was an instakill spell. I base that on the Baldur's Gate series of games. IIRC I would spam it against a dragon until it failed, and died.
Yeah I think it was still damage in 3.5 I wanna say it changed from 2 to 3 but it could of been 3 to 3.5
Just stick to Baleful Polymorph or Flesh to Stone and you'll be fine. There's still plenty of "save or lose" spells.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Back in 1e/2e, true Save or Die spells were more balanced because everything got better at saving throws at higher levels - there were no scaling save DCs. So by the time you were using slay living or finger of death, your opponents only failed their save on a something like a 1-3 on the d20. They could one-shot encounters but you had to get very lucky to do it. Imagine Pathfinder with all save DCs set to 17, no more, no less to get a feel for what it was like.
3.0 introduced save DCs that scaled with spell level and casting stat, and thus created a problem where SoD spells worked most of the time because people could boost their save DCs through the roof and require foes to roll super high to survive.
Back in 1e/2e, true Save or Die spells were more balanced because everything got better at saving throws at higher levels - there were no scaling save DCs. So by the time you were using slay living or finger of death, your opponents only failed their save on a something like a 1-3 on the d20. They could one-shot encounters but you had to get very lucky to do it. Imagine Pathfinder with all save DCs set to 17, no more, no less to get a feel for what it was like.
True, but I think the frustration felt by spellcasters at wasting that action with a save or die spell that was foiled by the save helped lead to them being able to boost their save DCs in 3e and beyond.