So i am here at work right now, and working on my campaign for my group this weekend, when i go off on this thought tangent about the spell true strike.
just a refresher
1st level spell for sorcerer or wizard
range, personal
target You
flavor text
"You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target."
I got to thinking about the spell, and i started thinking, well, how bad would it be game wise if the sorcerer's of the group decided to research some new spells based off of true strike.
for example
bestow true strike
3rd level sorc or wiz
target, any
target spell casted on gains +20 insight bonus to next single attack
or
Circle of true strike
5th level
target, any designated ally within 60ft radius
+20 insight bonus to next single attack to designated targets in 60ft circle.
Yes, the circle spell that i just rattled off seems kind of lame in regards to it reminding me about soemthing from WOW, But, setting that arguement aside, I am curious to see how that would affect game play if a sorcerer cast that and then the figter attacks and auto hits the enemy, followed up by the rogue doing an awesome sneak attack.
Now lets take this one step further. what if its a spell that adds +20 but to all attacks and its an instant spell that lasts for 1 round? or hwo bout if its given a range, like 100ft + 20ft per 2 levels. or if the duration is extended to all attacks, or to one attack for multiple rounds, or both, the list is endless. And, making sure that the new spells are of the appropriate spell level. like making a true strike spell at 9th level that gives a +20 insight to all attacks for 1 round per 2 caster levels. a 17th level wizard could cast that, giving someone a +20 to all attacks for at least 8 rounds. a 17 level fighter with a 18 str (being frugal here), a +4 magic sword, has a +17 base attack, +4 str, +4 magic, total is +25 to hit. so add in the +20 thats a +45 to hit base, for 8 rounds. that collossal red dragon with its 40+ AC is suddenly alot more easier to hit.
So what im thinking about is this, could it be a campaign killer if allowed, or if properly balanced, could it make it enjoyable?
also, how come TSR, WOTC and now Paizo not come out with this?
The spell(s) would also work against the party. It could make mooks a lot more challenging than they should be.
mooks?
mooks?
From Wizards...
But here he means cannon fodder sent against the party by the Big bad Evil Guy.
The spell(s) would also work against the party. It could make mooks a lot more challenging than they should be.
Would it really be any worse than an anti-paladin popping his Aura of Vengence with a bunch of archer mooks?
The spell(s) would also work against the party. It could make mooks a lot more challenging than they should be.Would it really be any worse than an anti-paladin popping his Aura of Vengence with a bunch of archer mooks?
Yeah. Even with the + to hit they might miss. I doubt they will miss on with a 20. They might also use the +20 to sunder, disarm, grapple and so on. A monk taking your weapon and running off would not be good for you. It is not like you will be running him down.
PS:Also what James said.
So not a spell-guy, but even I can see where Circle of True Strike is bad news.
I think it sounds really cool. I always wanted a higher level version of True Strike, because as it stands, it only affects the first attack in a round. That sucks later on, but makes sense for its level. I've been thinking of adding a higher level version that affects all attacks of a turn, but it'd be nice to have an official spell. My group and I rarely ever use custom spells.
Mass True Strike sounds like it could be a bit much, but if balanced well it has potential.
|
+! @ JJ. :)
Think about the spell(s) you're considering. Are there better spells at the given level? If not, the spell is too powerful.
Is the new spell(s) always going to be the first one picked by a spellcaster when they gain access to that level? If so, the spell is too powerful.
Is there sufficient restrictions or costs associated with the new spell(s) so that spellcasters will think twice (or thrice) before using it? If not, the spell is too powerful.
Let me reiterate point #1: +1 @ JJ. :)
1st level spell for sorcerer or wizardNow lets take this one step further. what if its a spell that adds +20 but to all attacks and its an instant spell that lasts for 1 round? or hwo bout if its given a range, like 100ft + 20ft per 2 levels. or if the duration is extended to all attacks, or to one attack for multiple rounds, or both, the list is endless.
True strike as used in our games has basically two purposes:
-guarantee hit with disintegrate, arrow of slaying, blessed crossbow bolts and impressive trick shots.-power charge for arcane knights and other melee casters. With verbal component only (at least in 3.5) it works fine in full plate.
now look at the variants proposed:
-adding +20 to all the casters attacks for the round is probably not gamebreaking, but definitely a boost for ftr/sorcerers and such. There are many builds that could use it (cleave, whirwind, dualwield).
-bestowing to another player (single roll) also looks safe. With the right feats, damage can be substantial but not ridiculous (except maybe for mounted power charge).
-bestowing to another player for a full round is extremely powerful: dualwielding rogues and whatnots.
-range? not sure what you mean: bonuses work on ranged attacks, i see no reason why bestowing would have to be touch range (except to restrict the usefulness)
good ideas though
True strike is balanced by the fact that you have to give up a round casting the spell (essentially doing nothing) before you can make the attack.
Allowing a spell that let's you "true strike" an ally messes with the balance that is the action economy.
I'd say it is broken or near broken at almost any level.
|
|
At higher levels the first attack roll is usually nearly an auto hit anyway. None of these spells are broken... In fact I'd say they are a little under-powered.
If you wanna make it over powered? Make it all attacks during the next round where an attack was made =) then it'd be op!
Another observation... does this insight bonus apply to CMB cause if it did i'd laugh at the party with 5 people at +20 TRIP, GRAPPLE, PIN, TIE-UP. lol... you might not even be able to do it but it made me laugh
At higher levels the first attack roll is usually nearly an auto hit anyway.
IF the character in question has full BAB and is using their class ability (favored enemy, smite evil, weapon training, etc). It's not nearly guaranteed otherwise.
I can see it useful for some Maneuvers, especially some of the new ones like Dirty Trick.
Dirty Trick to blind somebody by throwing dirt in their eyes (etc) is Ranged,
so you can avoid provoking even if you don`t have Improved Dirty Trick,
and it blinds them for multiple rounds without any Save (or Spell Resistance).
At highest levels, a 1st level spell is of course easily Quickened (via Feat or MM Rod) or is economic for Intelligent Items to have access to.
I can see it useful for some Maneuvers, especially some of the new ones like Dirty Trick.
Dirty Trick to blind somebody by throwing dirt in their eyes (etc) is Ranged,
so you can avoid provoking even if you don`t have Improved Dirty Trick,
and it blinds them for multiple rounds without any Save (or Spell Resistance).At highest levels, a 1st level spell is of course easily Quickened (via Feat or MM Rod) or is economic for Intelligent Items to have access to.
Yeah but the intelligent magic item isn't casting it on someone else so it doesn't mess with the action economy, it is still limited to personal range so would only affect the next thing the intelligent does. As for the quickened spell, you're getting an auto hit for the cost of a 5th level spell where a normal 5th level spell will be much more effective in 90% of encounters (BBEG encounter vs. multiple mob encounter). Not saying it is useless, just saying what it's cost isn't necessarily what it is worth.
As for the complaint of it only being a single attack, wraithstrike was the upgraded equivalent and is much less broken than a spell that gives you true strike equivalent for a full attack action as it won't completely overwhelm CMB/CMD mechanics. I know people will crop up about "broken", heck they are already here about true strike, but given a choice as a DM, I'd take wraithstrike over full round true strike any day.
I can see it useful for some Maneuvers, especially some of the new ones like Dirty Trick.
Dirty Trick to blind somebody by throwing dirt in their eyes (etc) is Ranged,
so you can avoid provoking even if you don`t have Improved Dirty Trick,
and it blinds them for multiple rounds without any Save (or Spell Resistance).
Unfortunately, no matter how high you roll for a Dirty Trick, the condition can be removed with a move or standard action, greatly limiting the effectiveness of TS + Dirty Trick.
I'm also not sure that any of the DTs can be used at range or even with a weapon, since no mention of range modifiers, etc., is ever made.
i am assuming that the dirty tricks section is in the advanced players guide, which i havent gotten yet,but since my bday is at the end of the month, its on my list of things to get.
the way i see it, i dont think that itll mess up the "economy of combat action" as Ravingdork (really?) put it. the wizard/sorcerer blows his load in massive attacks and damage, forgoing the need for melee attacks. the rogue uses flanking to gain an upper hand and get to be able to use the sneak attack, but only on the first strike. the cleric either throws out the spells of protection, and/or lays out the major healing. the fighter wades in and and hacks at the enemy, landing blows...
the only one with a "guaranteed" hit is the wizard, with the right spell. the rogue needs some serious help to hit the enemy. So why not have a spell that can give a boost to the rogue. the fighter, sure, he has the big attack, but hey, sometimes he can miss (especially if the player cant roll to save his characters butt, like myself). So giving him a boost to hit is huge!
now the flip side is, once this spell is out, how to play it. should it be a guarded secret since the PCs created it, or should they find it and have it available to play with. course, if they find it, then its out in the world and everyone can use it....
the way i see it, i dont think that itll mess up the "economy of combat action" as Ravingdork (really?) put it. the wizard/sorcerer blows his load in massive attacks and damage, forgoing the need for melee attacks. the rogue uses flanking to gain an upper hand and get to be able to use the sneak attack, but only on the first strike. the cleric either throws out the spells of protection, and/or lays out the major healing. the fighter wades in and and hacks at the enemy, landing blows...
the only one with a "guaranteed" hit is the wizard, with the right spell. the rogue needs some serious help to hit the enemy. So why not have a spell that can give a boost to the rogue. the fighter, sure, he has the big attack, but hey, sometimes he can miss (especially if the player cant roll to save his characters butt, like myself). So giving him a boost to hit is huge!
.
now the flip side is, once this spell is out, how to play it. should it be a guarded secret since the PCs created it, or should they find it and have it available to play with. course, if they find it, then its out in the world and everyone can use it....
You are implying that wizards are all non-combatant and don't rely on to hit rolls with the "forgoing the need for melee attacks" which simply put, isn't true. Some wizards decided to specialize in spells and take feats like Point Blank Shot to help with making attack rolls. Flanking is an additional +2 to hit, we're talking about a spell that gives them 10x's that for each attack... Really? Clerics can also be in the same boat, using spells like Inflict or Harm, completely forgoing your apparently narrow view of them just casting protections and healing. Fighters at first seem to probably get the least benefit numerically, but having more attacks means they do in fact benefit a great deal - as instead of some of the attacks hitting, its quite possible all attacks hit. Then factor in some maneuvers are actually based on the roll itself, not just success, this is a huge boon then. The fighter was going to succeed yeah, but now the move is extremely effective as the roll is basically 1/2 to 1/3 larger than it could be (+20 BAB, +20 TS, +1-20 from roll).
Saying something needs help, so why not make a spell that helps is poor logic. That spell will be used by everyone who can and then some. It is a blanket buff to whoever it is applied to as it is a spell cast on someone. Also trying to justify something by basing it on a random factor (the die roll) is just bad lol. I understand, I have more than my fair share of poor die rolls, but that has nothing to do with the balance of the game.
As for how to play it, don't. If the PC's have it, someone long ago was smart enough to think of it as well. If the PC's are allowed to have it the npc's should have access as well. It doesn't take long for people to make knock offs of anything original and effective, why should this be any different.
Yeah but the intelligent magic item isn't casting it on someone else so it doesn't mess with the action economy, it is still limited to personal range so would only affect the next thing the intelligent does. As for the quickened spell, you're getting an auto hit for the cost of a 5th level spell where a normal 5th level spell will be much more effective in 90% of encounters (BBEG encounter vs. multiple mob encounter). Not saying it is useless, just saying what it's cost isn't necessarily what it is worth.
OOOOOOOH!
I just reread the entire posting again, and apperantly i just skipped over skys original posting. reading it now, without the pain meds messing with my concentration, it makes sense now.you have true strike at 1st level because you are fighting monsters that are difficult to hit but also come in 1s and 2s. when you get to higher level, sure, you may have that single bad-ass monster, but you also encounter Hordes! what good does a +20 to 1 attack help if you have another 20 creatures swinging at you. throw down a fireball or some other area base spell and its more effective.
As for the complaint of it only being a single attack, wraithstrike was the upgraded equivalent and is much less broken than a spell that gives you true strike equivalent for a full attack action as it won't completely overwhelm CMB/CMD mechanics. I know people will crop up about "broken", heck they are already here about true strike, but given a choice as a DM, I'd take wraithstrike over full round true strike any day.
wraithstrike huh? hadnt heard about that one until now... seems pretty cool...
wraithstrike huh? hadnt heard about that one until now... seems pretty cool...
Basics: personal spell (2nd level? - no books at hand atm), swift action and allowed attacks to be resolved as touch attacks for that round (?). Low enough to be available to gish type characters with an effect that is pretty much like Truestrike (but not being as good). Pretty much does what the OP was asking for and shouldn't mess with the CMB/CMD mechanics.
True strike is balanced by the fact that you have to give up a round casting the spell (essentially doing nothing) before you can make the attack.
Allowing a spell that let's you "true strike" an ally messes with the balance that is the action economy.
I'd say it is broken or near broken at almost any level.
+1
Let's not forget that True Strike lets you auto-steal a weapon. Look at the rules for unarmed disarm attempts. You make the attempt at a -4 penalty (CMB vs CMD), but modifiers apply to CMB (meaning you will get True Strike's +20 modifier), and on a successful attempt you steal your opponent's weapon.
A medium BAB class with +20 & -4 is +16. That's relative auto-success. Letting your entire party benefit from this spell in 1 action takes the weapons away from every enemy -1 in a 5v5 confrontation. Thus, the part I most worry about is the fact that this becomes a no save Mass Disarm (only worse, because your characters take the weapons, so the enemies can't pick them back up).
Let's not forget that True Strike lets you auto-steal a weapon. Look at the rules for unarmed disarm attempts. You make the attempt at a -4 penalty (CMB vs CMD), but modifiers apply to CMB (meaning you will get True Strike's +20 modifier), and on a successful attempt you steal your opponent's weapon.
A medium BAB class with +20 & -4 is +16. That's relative auto-success. Letting your entire party benefit from this spell in 1 action takes the weapons away from every enemy -1 in a 5v5 confrontation. Thus, the part I most worry about is the fact that this becomes a no save Mass Disarm (only worse, because your characters take the weapons, so the enemies can't pick them back up).
Well - it's not exactly an auto-steal if you're attempting it unarmed and without the improved disarm feat. As you note, you'll take the -4 from being unarmed, but if the AOO you provoke causes you to get hit, you'll be taking another pretty big penalty to the attempt. The average orc (for example) will be doing 9 points of damage which brings your attempt down to +7. That still gives you a 70% chance to succeed but I'd hate to see what happens to you if you fail...
To the original point though - I agree that some spells just shouldn't have "___ other" or "circle of ___" versions. As it is, a quickened true strike is still a very good 5th level spell in the right circumstances.
Hrm...I don't think this would break the game per se so much as it would change the game. With respect to previous arguments, yes...True Strike is deadly at mid levels, especially when it comes to doing things other than hit someone effectively, but I think it would result in more people carrying secondary weapons with respect to disarm/steal, and more people preparing anti-trip strategies.
This is a good sort of thing for Magus` to do (assuming simultaneous Casting and Attacking is retained),
Casting Truestrike as 1st level spell while attacking, and gaining a massive bonus on WHATEVER CMB they want to do.
(Bullrush, Sunder, Disarm, Grapple, etc)
I had thought Dirty Trick blinding could be done at Range because of the following text:
but when I looked again, I realized the entire section is prefaced with:
So per RAW it apparently CAN´T be used at Range... unless your GM makes the huge leap that you can also THROW sand at an opponent, probably using the range increment for similar substances like magical powders which are thrown. Of course, without the Greater Dirty Trick they only need a Move Action to remove the condition, so it`s not as good an effect even if you can avoid the AoO by attacking via Range.
(Going with the precedent of the Sundering Weapon Quality, it seems reasonable for magic items to grant use of `greater` maneuver feats if you have the Improved version... and given precedent from the Qadira Companion with a Armored Kilt that grants Step Up for free without any other requirements, it seems reasonable for items to grant some of these straight up, eg... a THieves Cloak could grant various skill bonuses and CMB/CMD bonuses to Dirty Trick and Disarm, for example)
a friend and i looked at this coulple years back. If you were to make a higher level "True Strike" the power should be cut as well. Say around +10. It's alot like the "Vigor" spells. Single vigor is 3hp/round; but mass is 1hp/round. (The spell compendium version)
a friend and i looked at this coulple years back. If you were to make a higher level "True Strike" the power should be cut as well. Say around +10. It's alot like the "Vigor" spells. Single vigor is 3hp/round; but mass is 1hp/round. (The spell compendium version)
yeah that makes sense. i had talked to one of my players about this and he said that he can see both sides of the argument. but with our conversation, we got to thinking a simple +10 would be better.
not sure, going to try it out this sunday with the group. The group will know before hand that i will be doing this, and if they dont like it, then itll be pulled. if they like it, and dont have an issue with it, then it may stay in.
I'd look at "Snake's Swiftness" in the Spell Compendium to get an idea on how to help balance it also.
As to the OP Circle spell idea, I think 60' is way to far. No more then 30' away. If the spell becomes one they "need" all the time, it might just be too powerful. An expensive focus or material component is also a great idea.
I'd look at "Snake's Swiftness" in the Spell Compendium to get an idea on how to help balance it also.
As to the OP Circle spell idea, I think 60' is way to far. No more then 30' away. If the spell becomes one they "need" all the time, it might just be too powerful. An expensive focus or material component is also a great idea.
the 60ft circle was just a number i pulled. i think a 30 ft would be good. and having a rare expensive focus would help matters too. like maybe the arrowhead of one of the best bowman of legend. Or a sliver from the blade of an incredible swordsman, or something like that. Make it its own quest to gather the spell components for the spell. and since, with such limited amount of unique spell components, it would make the party question if and when they should use it.
sounds good, just don't forget that a focus can be reused. and part of its high price could be the rarity of the item not just what it is made out of