.
..
...
....
.....
I find odd reading people assigning all that power to stinking cloud. Unless very favorable terrain conditions, the cloud forces monsters to retreat in cover.
With theoretical situations, I choose the rules!
Humorously, damage dealing spells are worse at destroying objects than creatures. Most of them deal 1/2 or even 1/4th damage to objects before applying hardness, meaning that if you drop a maximized fireball on a stone door (hardness 8), it deals 22 points of damage to the stone door. If stone door was shot with a single full-attack by an appropriately leveled archer, it would take 1d8+5+5+10 damage per arrow, with pretty much every sot hitting, so we'd be dealing about 5 * 12 damage = 60 damage to the stone door assuming only a +5 weapon, +5 strength, and +10 from Deadly Aim; using normal arrows.
That was true in v3.5, but not so in Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, it is always half damage from energy attacks (regardless of energy type) unless the GM rules otherwise. Also, the rules are clear that ineffective weapons (such as shooting a stone door with arrow or cutting a rope with a club) doe NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER. In fact, it specifically states that if you don't have a pick or a hammer, you can't deal damage to stone.
Now if the wizard had tried a maximized cone of cold, it would have been a mighty 14 damage! Impressive! :D
Again, 1/2 damage regardless of energy type.
Meteor-swarm? Let's see. Likely no damage to the door from the impact, and comparable damage to the maximized fireball, or about 34 damage; assuming that you are generous with the reading of fire resistance. As written, hardness applies to each sphere, meaning you'll actually deal LESS damage than with the maximized fireball.
Again, not true (anymore). Meteor swarms has been changed so you combine ALL the damage (from impact and sphere explosions) and then apply energy resistance, hardness, etc.
I find that blasters don't suck, the only thing that sucks are peoples' understanding of the rules.
Humorously, damage dealing spells are worse at destroying objects than creatures. Most of them deal 1/2 or even 1/4th damage to objects before applying hardness, meaning that if you drop a maximized fireball on a stone door (hardness 8), it deals 22 points of damage to the stone door. If stone door was shot with a single full-attack by an appropriately leveled archer, it would take 1d8+5+5+10 damage per arrow, with pretty much every sot hitting, so we'd be dealing about 5 * 12 damage = 60 damage to the stone door assuming only a +5 weapon, +5 strength, and +10 from Deadly Aim; using normal arrows.
RULES PEDANTRY TIME! Ranged attacks deal half damage against objects before hardness!
Page 174, paragraph 2 under Table 7-9!
Oh yeah!
.
..
...
....
.....
Go FIREBALL and it's fun fun COLLATERAL DAMAGE!
The FIREBALL sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.
::
Blasting is a great way of making use of the game environment. With blast spells a little creativity can really go a long way!
The way I see it, SOS spells are one set of tools, each with a specialist function. They can be very effective, obviously.
Then there are blasting spells - the burn, melt, freeze, shatter stuff (not to mention the fun with conductivity and lighting!).
If a player can't see how options of burning, melting, freezing stuff within an environment/encounter can be used tactically beyond 'do X hps to monster' then yes, blasting spells are not going to appeal.
I find odd reading people assigning all that power to stinking cloud. Unless very favorable terrain conditions, the cloud forces monsters to retreat in cover.
Which is why you do stinking cloud + web. You can't escape grapples without standard actions (unless your GM is giving every monster greater grapple).
.
..
...
....
.....Go FIREBALL and it's fun fun COLLATERAL DAMAGE!
The FIREBALL sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.
::
Blasting is a great way of making use of the game environment. With blast spells a little creativity can really go a long way!
The way I see it, SOS spells are one set of tools, each with a specialist function. They can be very effective, obviously.
Then there are blasting spells - the burn, melt, freeze, shatter stuff (not to mention the fun with conductivity and lighting!).
If a player can't see how options of burning, melting, freezing stuff within an environment/encounter can be used tactically beyond 'do X hps to monster' then yes, blasting spells are not going to appeal.
** spoiler omitted **
Flaming sphere is better as a non-instanteouns spell it is allowed to set people (not just objects) on fire.
Which is why you do stinking cloud + web. You can't escape grapples without standard actions (unless your GM is giving every monster greater grapple).I find odd reading people assigning all that power to stinking cloud. Unless very favorable terrain conditions, the cloud forces monsters to retreat in cover.
Which is another spell, targeting another save, and which needs a support to be cast on, and can be a deadly trap for allies and summoned creatures as well.
If works, is great, but I don't see it as a powerful unbeatable combo.
Flaming sphere is better as a non-instanteouns spell it is allowed to set people (not just objects) on fire.stuff
Aye aye I agree! - remote control flaming sphere also has much love!
However, I wouldn't say it was 'better' *because* it has an effect of more than a round.
Personally I'd say that it has advantages because it lasts for more than round - as well as disadvantages.
Right tools for the job - different spells providing different options in different situations etc etc
Expeditious Retreat
School transmutation; Level bard 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 min./level (D)
This spell increases your base land speed by 30 feet. This adjustment is treated as an enhancement bonus. There is no effect on other modes of movement, such as burrow, climb, fly, or swim. As with any effect that increases your speed, this spell affects your jumping distance (see the Acrobatics skill).
-That spell is for outrunning the warrior, not helping him outrun you! Personal range only means you can't cast it on someone else, unless you're an alchemist using the infusion ability.
|
Which cantrip tho? Blasting with ray of frost or SoS like dazzle? I think at the cantrip level, blasting away maybe a better option then -1 to hit...If not, your still equally screwed since your tossing level 1 spells at something that is ready and willing to kill you at high levels :P .Hmmm, after those first level spells are gone, I guess the next itteratation is deciding between cantrips or using that dagger.
Greg
Maybe at that point the mage gives the bad guy the somantic gesture representing the "last act of defiance" and just lets himself be eaten. :P
Greg
And then you use the dagger to kill yourself to deny them the satisfaction...hah so you do use the dagger ;) .
|
|
Ashiel: your examples seem to be falling into the common trap of evaluating blasting spells as single-target spells. 17.5 average damage (on a failed save no less!) for a Fireball cast by a level 5 Wizard is, of course, naff. But that's assuming that the spell is used in the least effective manner one could possibly use it in - attacking a single target... if you're playing a dedicated blaster mage, then why are you doing this? You should know better... shame on you blaster mage... ;p
Umm wrong on that point. 5d6 averages to 17.5 damage...half that on a save. At 10th level 17.5 is the damage for a saved fireball...but by 10th levels, your spell options over fireball is quite impressive.
|
|
.
..
...
....
.....So yes force multipliers can easily 'win the day', assuming all forces are available and capable.
That is very true. I do have a wizard that is a blasty wizard in one game I am in because multiplication of zero is still zero. We have one character who can't...I mean can roll max dice and not be able to break 10 on DPR at level 8. The others aren't much better....
13th level wizard, empowered, maximized, intensified Burning Hands. 5d4 +40.
Hmm.
BH does d4/caster level, max 5d4.
Intensify moves this to +5dice, so 10d4.
Empower is +5d4 dmg (+50%)
Maximize turns the 10d4 into 40.
So, it's actually 40 (base spell) + 5d4.
Either a 4th level spell slot, or use metamagic mastery to pay for it for free once a day. Still a base 11+Stat save, tho.
==Aelryinth
13th level wizard, empowered, maximized, intensified Burning Hands. 5d4 +40.
Hmm.
BH does d4/caster level, max 5d4.
Intensify moves this to +5dice, so 10d4.
Empower is +5d4 dmg (+50%)
Maximize turns the 10d4 into 40.
So, it's actually 40 (base spell) + 5d4.Either a 4th level spell slot, or use metamagic mastery to pay for it for free once a day. Still a base 11+Stat save, tho.
==Aelryinth
Does empowered spell add extra dice? I thought you just multiplied the result by 1.5.
To my knowledge, nothing is IMMUNE to a +5 greatsword.
Black Puddings (CR7) are immune to a +5 greatsword. Or rather, they take no damage.
Also, granted that Evasion/Improved Evasion can hurt "blaster" mages, however, I think "save or suck" spells are nearly worthless after 4 character levels.
Sleep: Great when you take it at 1st level, but its limited to 4HD creatures.
Cause Fear: Great at 1st level, but is limited to one creature of 5HD or less
Daze Monster: Great at 3rd (or 4th level if sorcerer), but its limited to one creature of 6HD or less.
Scare: Great at 3rd (or 4th level if sorcerer), but its limited to one creature of 6HD or less.
Deep Slumber: OK at 5th (or 6th level if sorcerer), but its limited to 10HD.
Even spells without HD limits become less effective. For example, Blindness/Deafness is awesome, untill you consider your save DCs will stop increasing, but the monsters you fight keep getting better saves to defend against your spells.
But save DC's start to out pace saves as you go higher and higher, making this less and less of a problem.
HUH? I think the exact opposite is true. (see above)
I think the best attack spells are touch attack spells (especially ranged). Most of them don't allow saves (Scorching Ray), or are still effective with a save (Ray of Enfeeblement). Also, the caster's BAB will keep increasing, but most monsters have bad touch ACs. Giant Slug (CR8) = 4 touch AC, Lich (CR12) = 14 touch AC, Ancient Copper Dragon (CR17) = 8 touch AC. Even a Pit Fiend (CR20) with a touch AC of 18 is not that bad, considering a 20th level wizard has a BAB of +10. Add in another +4 from misc. bonuses (dex mod, Weapon Focus: Ray, morale bonuses, magic items, whatever), a wizard will hit the Pit Fiend 85% of the time. Actually, if you are min/maxing this type of caster, you can get better than a +4. Plus, you have the added benefit of attacking at range, without worrying about their melee attacks/auras/reach/etc. Most of these spells fall into the "blaster" camp.
That said, I don't think any spellcaster should only take a single type of spell. At least a few utility spells (fly, invisibility, teleport, etc.) should be in every spellcaster's repitoire. Not nesecarilly those utility spells, but some utility spells.
I find odd reading people assigning all that power to stinking cloud. Unless very favorable terrain conditions, the cloud forces monsters to retreat in cover.
And even in that case, if you drop it on half of the enemies (since bringing it up is a counterpoint to "but blasting is awesome for lots of weak enemies") and they retreat in cover, your party then gets to gang up on the un-clouded half in a bad way, then fight the clouded ones thereafter.
Fighting half a group and then the other half of the group is a lot easier than fighting the whole group. Assuming the combat was remotely correctly CR'd and the rest of your party isn't completely incompetent, getting to do so makes a difficult fight very easy.
|
|
To my knowledge, nothing is IMMUNE to a +5 greatsword.
Black Puddings (CR7) are immune to a +5 greatsword. Or rather, they take no damage.
Also, granted that Evasion/Improved Evasion can hurt "blaster" mages, however, I think "save or suck" spells are nearly worthless after 4 character levels.
Sleep: Great when you take it at 1st level, but its limited to 4HD creatures.
Cause Fear: Great at 1st level, but is limited to one creature of 5HD or less
Daze Monster: Great at 3rd (or 4th level if sorcerer), but its limited to one creature of 6HD or less.
Scare: Great at 3rd (or 4th level if sorcerer), but its limited to one creature of 6HD or less.
Deep Slumber: OK at 5th (or 6th level if sorcerer), but its limited to 10HD.Even spells without HD limits become less effective. For example, Blindness/Deafness is awesome, untill you consider your save DCs will stop increasing, but the monsters you fight keep getting better saves to defend against your spells.
But save DC's start to out pace saves as you go higher and higher, making this less and less of a problem.
HUH? I think the exact opposite is true. (see above)
I think the best attack spells are touch attack spells (especially ranged). Most of them don't allow saves (Scorching Ray), or are still effective with a save (Ray of Enfeeblement). Also, the caster's BAB will keep increasing, but most monsters have bad touch ACs. Giant Slug (CR8) = 4 touch AC, Lich (CR12) = 14 touch AC, Ancient Copper Dragon (CR17) = 8 touch AC. Even a Pit Fiend (CR20) with a touch AC of 18 is not that bad, considering a 20th level wizard has a BAB of +10. Add in another +4 from misc. bonuses (dex mod, Weapon Focus: Ray, morale bonuses, magic items, whatever), a wizard will hit the Pit Fiend 85% of the time. Actually, if you are min/maxing this type of caster, you can get better than a +4. Plus, you have the added benefit of...
1)Yes some level 1 SoS spells lose usefulness after a certain point. So do MOST level 1 spell in general. Even blasting spells. However some of the best spells to keep around won't be blasty spells. Spells like grease, feather fall or create pit are all decidely NOT blasty spells.
2)Save DC outpace saves IF your pumping up your casting stat "properly". Your good save goes up by +10 and bad by +6 over 20 levels. Your DC goes up by +8 from just stat increases(+6 item, +5 level up +5 tomes). And that doesn't even account for the DC increases for higher level spells that you should be tossing around and feats. Now a con/ref/wis increases also increases saves...but your gonna be targeting the WEAK saves anyways so really that +6 with VERY little increase from stat mean yes DC does outpace saves.
3) Yes you can easily touch attack SOME critters...like say slugs and oozes. And well the odd undefended dragon and liches and balors. But how often do you face them when you have the perfect angle on them? Melee is a -4 unless you invest feats. Cover is +4 ac unless you spend even more feats.
1)Yes some level 1 SoS spells lose usefulness after a certain point. So do MOST level 1 spell in general. Even blasting spells. However some of the best spells to keep around won't be blasty spells. Spells like grease, feather fall or create pit are all decidely NOT blasty spells.
Daze Monster and Scare are 2nd level.
Deep Slumber is 3rd level.Conversely, Ray of Enfeeblement (1st level) will be useful at every character level, and Scorching Ray (2nd level) maxes out at 12d6 damage (even more if you crit).
2)Save DC outpace saves IF your pumping up your casting stat "properly". Your good save goes up by +10 and bad by +6 over 20 levels. Your DC goes up by +8 from just stat increases(+6 item, +5 level up +5 tomes). And that doesn't even account for the DC increases for higher level spells that you should be tossing around and feats. Now a con/ref/wis increases also increases saves...but your gonna be targeting the WEAK saves anyways so really that +6 with VERY little increase from stat mean yes DC does outpace saves.
OK, I wasn't considering +5 Tomes AND +6 items (what item is +6 on save DCs???). I normally play low-magic campaigns so I've never encountered either, much less both. However, even giving you both of the above, most monsters have 2 good saves and 1 bad save. Using YOUR math, you are twice as likely to be LESS effective (ie. have a bigger chance of no effect) with the same spell, the higher level you get. And thats after sinking a boatload of GP into magic items. If you didn't have access to those particular items (say, your DM was running an AP, which has pre-gen items), you don't even come close. Add in the fact that your opponents ALSO get magic items, and the fact that magic items bumping saves are more common than those helping your touch AC...
3) Yes you can easily touch attack SOME critters...like say slugs and oozes. And well the odd undefended dragon and liches and balors. But how often do you face them when you have the perfect angle on them? Melee is a -4 unless you invest feats. Cover is +4 ac unless you spend even more feats.
You mean like you can easily beat the saves of SOME critters? I think you are underestimating the effectiveness of touch attacks. Your touch attacks become MORE effective the higher you get. Take a 20th level fighter. His touch AC is probably around 15. My example of a 20th level wizard would hit him 95% of the time, and as I've said, its not a min-maxed example.
Also, Point Blank shot only increases the chance of your rays hitting their targets, so I hardly call that a wasted feat. Then you can take Precise Shot to ignore the penalty AND get the +1 bonus to your attack. Meanwhile, the "SoS" wizard will be spending the same number of feats to take Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration, so I don't buy the argument that this is a feat-heavy build.
Heck, take the touch AC of EVERY CR20 monster from BOTH the Bestiary AND Bestiary 2...
Balor Demon: 20
Ancient Gold Dragon: 5
Pit Fiend Devil: 18
Tarn Linnorm: 10
Draconal Agathion: 18
Iathavos Qlippoth: 7
Lhaksharut Inevitable: 18
Nightwave Nightshade: 5
Olethrodaemon Daemon: 18
Pleroma Aeon: 24
...only the Pleroma comes close to the level progression against touch AC. In every other case the Wizard's accuracy gets better over time. Even WITH the -4 to attacking into melee, these are not bad numbers with a +14 to your attack (and there is no reason the wizard should still have a -4 penalty by this level).
Plus, Blaster mages can take merciful spell (for no additional spell slots), Sickening spell, Dazing Spell, etc., and duplicate most of the effects of SoS spells.
Let me be clear, I'm not defending all "blaster" mages, just the ones focused on touch attacks, which is a subset of "blaster" mages. I agree that Fireball is NOT a great spell. Its average at best.
Also, I say again, that NO spellcaster should focus on only 1 type of spell.
*object rules*
Ahhh yes, I see they did get updated. I admit to missing this alteration, and it does make it a little better on people. I still stand by my original statements however; because even at 1/2 damage, all that junk is really quite bad.
Likewise, even at 1/2 damage for ranged attacks, you're not using up spells. The explanation of ineffective weapons is pretty vague and doesn't seem to include explanations for effects such as magic weapons, adamantine weapons, and so forth. It does say you can't cut a rope with a mace, and it does say that weapons that aren't hammers or picks have little (but not no) effect on objects; but does not define.
Even still, if it's object destruction you want; I'd recommend disintegrate instead of a blasting spell. It automatically destroys large objects, sections of walls, and so forth; and it can deal a lot of damage if used properly (most compare this to various save or die spells).
And for the record, the only thing that is specified as being applied once in meteor swarm is energy resistance, not hardness; but I do believe applying hardness once is the correct interpretation. It doesn't stop Meteor Swarm from being absolutely horrid for its level.
Finally, I didn't say blasters sucked. I showed why people get this idea, and that's because even if blasters don't suck, other things are better most of the time. I've been playing this game for 11 years, and I've seen a lot of tricks of the trade and various forms of optimized junk (I had one player in a public game that figured out a way to effectively cast 10th level spells using cantrips before 20th; though I told him that was a cool trick, and explained to him the difference between theorycraft optimization and real optimization).
What I'm getting at is I've seen a lot of blasting, and I've seen a lot of everything else. I've seen it with my PCs, my NPCs, and on paper. There is a valid reason people say this stuff, and it's because in the course of 11 years of time this game has been out, people have been playing it and discovering what works.
Any game that has been out that long, with a standardized method of play, will develop a wealth of information to assist a new player in strategies. People have written strategy guides, essentially, based on sound and logical information that is based in facts and reasoning. I'm not entirely certain why people rail against this so hard. It's obvious that blasting has problems, yet people want to argue instead of fix it.
I think the 3.5 Psionics (not to be confused with 3.0 Psionics) system was heading in the right direction. They allowed a character with the various "energy" powers to adjust the type of energy when they manifested the power (IE - cast the spell), and had a few unique features for each element. Fire and Cold inflicted +1 damage per die, so 3d6 becomes 3d6+3, but fire and cold are also the most commonly resisted elements. Cold targeted your Fortitude save, which meant that it allowed blasters a 1 out of 4 option to overcome Evasion. Electricity dealt normal damage but was harder to resist (either a +2 Save DC, or a +2 to hit, etc). Sonic was the weakest at -1 damage per die (so 3d6 becomes 3d6-3), but virtually nothing is immune or resistant to sonic damage, so it was also the most assured form of damage; and it also ignored hardness (making it ideal for collapsing walls or breaking doors).
So if I want to build a blaster (and we all have that itch), the psionics system is really the way to go. Psions are weaker than core casters, but they actually do blasting pretty well because they can adapt fairly easily. Here's an example you might see in play.
Say you're a blasty-sorcerer; a very common concept. You learn fireball and dispel magic as your two 3rd level spells. Your other damaging spells are magic missile, scorching ray, and shocking grasp.
You encounter a creature resistant or immune to fire. Most of your effectiveness just got flushed. This could include CR 3 Fire Elementals (you're 5th-6th level when you get fireball so this is definitely a fair fight), also any fiendish creatures have resistance 5-10 at this level and are pretty common (you at least see these as summoned creatures), or anyone who casts resist energy:fire. It's fairly easy to rob you of effectiveness. Also if you fight a monk or rogue (or at higher levels anyone with a ring of evasion).
My players are currently in a game where fiendish animals are a common encounter (the big bad has a lot of fiends under his command and he uses creatures like fiendish bats, ravens, dogs, and so forth as spies). The party is 5th level currently, and the party can frequently encounter stuff like massed groups of fiendish creatures (since most fiendish animals have a low CR) and the occasional fiendish ogre or ogre mage (oni). The party has a 5th level psion who knows energy wall, and the ability to change the damage type from fire to something other than fire or cold has been very helpful in keeping him useful. :)
Another thing to keep in mind is the tactical considerations. D&D is a tactical game, like it or not. It has its roots in tactical war-games, and while it birthed the RPG genre, it still maintains a certain level of tactical significance. Tactics by and by are a very large part of surviving encounters when you are outnumbered, outmatched, or just lacking a home-field advantage (which adventurers often are). The problem is blasting spells just aren't very tactical.
I'm sure someone is going to come argue this over countless pages; but here's the thing. Until an enemy is either dead or disabled, they are a threat. HP is binary/Boolean. Either it's ON or OFF; either you're up or your down as far as damage goes. It doesn't matter if you have 1,111 hp or 1 Hp, you can still act and threaten your enemies. This means that even if you "soften" them up, it's not going to stop them from threatening your party; just make it so it takes less time to kill them individually.
Now, a very basic tactical consideration is "don't split your attention". The basic concept is simple. Instead of breaking off and splitting your party's focus among multiple foes, it is more effective to focus-fire one enemy at a time and then cycle between them. Generally this is pretty simple. Pick one guy, and everyone focuses on taking that guy out; then switch to the next guy, and so forth. There are some variations, and if you can take that guy out while also hurting another enemy (such as via the Cleave feat) then power to you; but try not to waste actions "softening" enemies when you could be making it harder for them to kill you.
This basic concept is prevalent in RTS games and even the ever popular Baldur's Gate series for the PC (which uses 2E D&D rules). Early in my time playing baldur's gate, I wondered why I was using spells like magic missile and fireball so heavily, and yet my party was getting slaughtered by enemies almost constantly. I had to reload from save-games like it was my job (eh, I was a young teen, tactics weren't my forte I guess). However, one day, I realized what the problem was.
My enemies didn't often throw things like fireballs. They did cast things like horror which always seemed to result in at least one person in my party having a panic attack and running off to act stupid, and they were quire happy with spells and potions of haste which sometimes had them killing my PCs before I realized they were dead. Stuff like hold person meant that my ever important meat-shield wasn't even capable of twiddling his thumbs, while various charm and dominate spells generally meant my favorite hamster loving ranger was pitching for the wrong team. >.<
Even if my enemies weren't casting spells, I found that damage spells weren't very tactical. You see, damage spells were actually pretty cool in 1-2E because enemies really didn't have many HP (honestly a 45 hp enemy was a pretty strong fellow, whereas that's about CR 3-4 in Pathfinder); so those big damage spells like fireball were a lot sexier (17.5 damage was pretty nice when your enemies probably had 9-12 HP). However, they weren't tactical. If I didn't kill the ogre with my flame arrow spell, or the mage didn't die when I used acid arrow, or that ghoul didn't croak when he was hit with magic missile, the ogre still swung his sword, the mage would cast his spell, and the ghoul would paralyze somebody.
Then I learned to start thinking about things in terms of "don't let them hurt you" or "reduce incoming fire". Suddenly the game shifted from incredibly difficult to challenging. Instead of magic missile, I prepared sleep, which made many of the encounters very easy (fighting a pack of kobolds with shortbows intent on killing poor Imoen? Shut them down!). Instead of casting fireball, summon monster I (a 3rd level spell then) was the weapon of choice, because even if the monster couldn't kill the badguys, it made it harder for them to engage my party; who could then begin focus-firing arrows, slings, and crossbow bolts into its scaled hide.
I realized that hasting and buffing your party improved their survivability and helped them kill enemies faster. I learned that instead of sending each character to fight a different foe, I would have them all pick an unlucky fellow and focus on killing him at all costs; so that when 4 becomes 3, and 3 becomes 2, there's only 3 and then 2 attacks coming back at you. It's better to take down one enemy per round than 4 enemies at once over 4 rounds.
By using buffs and debuffs that affected multiple creatures, I could often sit back and conserve my good spells. A single summon monster spell ensured that I had garnished the worth out of my wizard for the whole fight (even if the summon is killed, that's time my enemies have wasted mowing through the summon). Then my wizard can sit back and counter other wizards (in BG I & II, this is the purpose I found for magic missile, because it has a fast casting time and almost assuredly breaks their concentration; allowing me to get it off before they could finish casting a 2nd level or higher spell).
Fireball was good for abusing the system (you could fire it off screen, killing enemies without them registering that they were under attack) but for actual gameplay, spells like haste, slow, horror, sleep, and summon spells were more effective at actually succeeding. By succeeding, I mean this was the best way to try and keep you and your friends alive, conserve resources (those 3rd level spells are valuable!), and try not too use too many consumables (if you blow 130 gp worth of potions during or after a fight, but you only got 30 gp worth of treasure, the joke's on you! :P).
In actual D&D, these rules still apply. I'd actually say they apply more than they do in this computer based environments because obstacles and adventures are not limited to pre-programmed responses and tactics. You never know exactly what those crazy kobolds are going to do. You can't "cheese" your way through certain encounters by engaging the fight from "off screen", and so on and so forth. You can encounter enemies who attack from three dimensions; more enemies hide from you; and they have a wider breadth of options.
However, the core concept of this remains. If there's four of you, and you're engaging 8 kobolds and they're fighting you like kobolds mean it (could be traps in the area, they're taking cover, using ranged weapons, etc), then instead of trying to hit a kobold with scorching ray, magic missile, or flaming sphere, dive behind a meat-shield (+4 AC vs ranged attacks), and drop a sleep, enlarge person, heroism, or summon monster II and lay down the law. You might not do the killing, but you stand a good chance of making them lose actions, helping your allies kill them, or preventing your allies from getting hurt. And if that's the case, then you're a good wizard and we love you.
.
..
...
....
.....
So aye - use the right tool for the job at hand/situation.
Limiting spell selection is bad - but be aware that many spells are not as limited as they appear at first glance.
Using force multipliers when there is an available and capable force to be multiplied is good - be aware that such forces can turn against you (see: Dominated Fighter kills party.)
Knowing that blasting spells can have more uses than simply.. blasting.. is good - use them creatively. You can get a lot out of simply torching the hut where the bad guys are camping etc. Don't rely on them but don't discount them.
::
I honestly don't think 'blast' spells need an overhaul, but this is, of course, personal opinion. I see 'blast' spells as a set of clearly defined tools that can serve many a purpose other than simply dealing X HP of damage to a monster
Would more damage make a 'pure blaster' more 'viable'?
Yes. For a given value of viable.
::
Something to remember:
DMs have different styles. Everything is situational. Your 'best' options will typically change as circumstances change.
::
Personally I would not limit my spell choices to 'blasting' or 'SoS' exclusively - I'd mix them up.
I'd take more or less 'blasts' and 'SoS' depending on my character's preference. I'd use a spell selection to help define my character's.. character!
::
Remember, know your tools!
|
I just don't see ANY use for heighten. If the spell is save or die, there's guaranteed to be a better save or die spell at X levels higher.Flesh to Stone is my favorite use for it.
Baleful Polymorph is also a favorite.
EDITED
Heightened Sanctuary with some Spiritual Weapons and Summon Monster spells cast.
Ellington's Very Short Guide on His Favorite Blaster
Class: Wizard with the Admixture sub-school. This gives your blasts a small boost to damage, and allows you to change the elemental typing of your blasts when you run into creatures with immunities or vulnerabilities. Changing your typing on the spot to take advantage of an elemental vulnerability can double your damage output!
Feats: Extra traits (not necessary if you gain traits in your campaign). Pick up Magical Lineage (Scorching Ray) and another trait of your choice. Pick up Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot to aid your scorching rays, and get Empower Spell, Intensify Spell and Quicken Spell as metamagic feats.
You can now cast empowered scorching rays as third level spells, quickened scorching rays as fifth level spells and modify them to be whatever element is suitable a few times per day. Thanks to point blank shot and precise shot you can fire them into melee. When you run into swarms of mooks, you can use fireball or similar spells to take care of them (intensified at higher levels).
This is the most effective blaster to me. Even though he doesn't pack as much raw power as a red dragon bloodline sorcerer, he's not screwed when faced with fire immunities.
So aye - use the right tool for the job at hand/situation.
Limiting spell selection is bad - but be aware that many spells are not as limited as they appear at first glance.
Using force multipliers when there is an available and capable force to be multiplied is good - be aware that such forces can turn against you (see: Dominated Fighter kills party.)
The the fighter is dominated, fireball isn't going to help. Neither will magic missile. Protection from Evil and Dispel Magic will.
Knowing that blasting spells can have more uses than simply.. blasting.. is good - use them creatively. You can get a lot out of simply torching the hut where the bad guys are camping etc. Don't rely on them but don't discount them.
Torching a hut indeed would be fairly effective, and can be done without magic. If you just want to set a "hut" on fire, then all you need is oil and fire, and the oil is probably optional. This means anyone, rogue, wizard, or fighter, could do so with a torch, alchemist fire, and so forth. Prestidigitation works too.
Then again, I don't generally prepare spells with the assumption that those huts need to go down, unless I'm somewhere on Tatooine and my greater teleport is recharging.
I honestly don't think 'blast' spells need an overhaul, but this is, of course, personal opinion. I see 'blast' spells as a set of clearly defined tools that can serve many a purpose other than simply dealing X HP of damage to a monster
Would more damage make a 'pure blaster' more 'viable'?
Yes. For a given value of viable.
It depends. If blast spells were intended to just deal damage, then yes, more damage would be helpful. The problem with this is that you either deal enough damage to be comparable to warrior types, which kind of poo-poos on the warrior types (it's really all they got dudes), or you make them more viable in other ways.
Blizzard Entertainment got something right with this logic in their Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft games. For example, Fire spells tend to deal a lot of damage and stun opponents, while cold spells deal less damage but freeze opponents, causing them to move slower, attack slower, or freeze them in place. I think this would be more appealing, honestly. Mainly because it would mean you wouldn't need to deal extreme amounts of damage to assist.
Something to remember:
DMs have different styles. Everything is situational. Your 'best' options will typically change as circumstances change.
Which is why I write my posts based on the established standard. If someone asks about D&D/Pathfinder, then I tell them about D&D/Pathfinder. If they ask about John Doe's D&D/Pathfinder, then I'll try to adapt my advice for that. I don't take into account half a dozen house rules and things that are irrelevant by default.
Personally I would not limit my spell choices to 'blasting' or 'SoS' exclusively - I'd mix them up.
I'd take more or less 'blasts' and 'SoS' depending on my character's preference. I'd use a spell selection to help define my character's.. character!
Personally, I agree with this. Blasting or SoS is limited. The best results that I've found over my 11 years of no-lifing this game would be a combination of battlefield control, buffs, SoS, and summoning spells, with a smattering of utility spells when possible; and damaging spells that have multiple uses: telekinesis and disintegrate being key examples.
Remember, know your tools!
Preaching to the quire, friend. :)
.
..
...
....
.....
Aye aye, I hear ya - with such a wide variety of games a standard is required for reference.
We just gotta make sure folk realise that the standard is a mythical beast of convenience, simply so they don't solely rely on what is said regarding it but, ideally, use such examples/references to help them explore their options/handle the system, do what they wanna do etc
Tis another tool! SO MANY TOOLS!
::
..as you've highlighted, things will vary depending on the circumstance:
Got torch and want to burn hut? Go for it.
Got time and want to set fire to large portions of the hut? Douse it in oil then set fire to. (Assuming you can do it sneakily..)
Got even more time and resources and want to make sure the bastards are dead? Divert a raging river to drown them all.
Want to quickly set fire to large portions of the hut from range? FIREBALL. (Assuming you have a caster, they're happy to spend a 3rd level spell slot, they're not drunk etc)
::
Aye, and of course, a fireball won't help versus the dominated fighter. Strange -- the intent of that remark was to warn that force multipliers rely on forces to multiply and such forces can sometimes become a liability.
If I was said fighter I'd be crying if the only tool for dealing with me was a fireball! :D
::
Preaching to the quire, friend. :)
HALLELUJAH!
WE NEED A HOLY SYMBOL!
I'm thinking ducks...
I like ducks. ^-^
But yeah, the reason I mentioned the protection from evil bit with the fighter is because I tend to view D&D as a team game. The fighter has a very specific role most of the time, and that's deal damage. He's vulnerable to stuff like charms and domination, but if you have enough love to spare a 1st level spell for him, he's outright immune to such nonsense.
I see wizards trying to blast things as being very similar to wizards trying to out-rogue the rogue. Go ahead and keep a scroll or wand of knock or fireball on hand for the odd case you might want to use it, but it's definitely the last thing you want to be doing if you have anyone else who can do it for you.
And in general, this is true. Even if you don't have a dedicated fighter. If you can cast animate dead, or the party's cleric can, then stuff like haste works good on them too. Same with summon monsters.
Plus, "smart" wizards have the side benefit of making the party look good, which makes everyone feel good (usually). Not only do you conserve spells by not trying to deal damage every round, but if you cast haste on your party, everyone else does the butt-kicking, so you get to smile knowing you facilitated tons of butt-kicking, while everyone else gets to smile knowing they kicked a lot of butt. :P
EDIT: Also, as a purely personal preference, I try to craft magic items for my party first and foremost. A few staples are good, but stuff like continual protection from evil on the party's +1 armors can save 1st level spells in the long run, and helps the party out (for the record, we can see through reverse engineering that the energy resistance effects of armors are just the spell prices added to the armor, meaning that protection from evil on an armor would increase market cost by +4,000 gp, or +2,000 gp if crafting it yourself). It's expensive, but worth no getting mind-raped all the time.
Got torch and want to burn hut? Go for it.
Got time and want to set fire to large portions of the hut? Douse it in oil then set fire to. (Assuming you can do it sneakily..)
Got even more time and resources and want to make sure the bastards are dead? Divert a raging river to drown them all.
Want to quickly set fire to large portions of the hut from range? FIREBALL. (Assuming you have a caster, they're happy to spend a 3rd level spell slot, they're not drunk etc)
The crux of the problem is here:
they're happy to spend a 3rd level spell slot
Wizards pride themselves on being able to bend reality over their knees and give it a thorough spanking when it doesn't behave according to their expectations. They can achieve this by expending a finite resource called spells.
Now, spells can be grouped into two general categories:
a) Spells that reproduce the effect of a more mundane activity - sometimes they're more efficient than mundane attempts, sometimes less so;
b) Spells that do things nothing but magic/magical items can achieve.
Fireball falls squarely into category A - as a damage dealing tool (generally inferior to a professional whacking a greatsword at things) and as setting things on fire tool (generally superior to any nonmagical effect achievable in one standard action). Pretty much all blasts fall into this category. By contrast, no barbarian can eat enough beans and cabbage to achieve an effect remotely comparable to the stinking cloud spell, and no expert can build a wall in one standard action.
Now, since spells are a finite resource, and since wizards like to adventure with brawny fighters, wily rogues and spoony bards, preparing category A spells is generally inefficient (as your comrades can achieve similar results without expending finite resources the way you do) and potentially bad to the group's morale (no Rogue I've seen/heard of appreciates wizards taking over their job with a set of wands). On the other hand, spells that fall into category B are a sure bet when it comes to contributing to the team's efforts.
Obviously, this isn't hard science. Sometimes doing something quicker than others can is better than being able to do something no one else can. But it's highly situational, and most of the time you're preparing spells in advance, so sure bet wins over "may be situationally better".
Agreed. I think this excerpt from my blog sums it up fairly well.
Alvena Publishing[/url]"]Summary: Ultimately the reason that damaging spells aren't very useful is because they lack options and they're here and gone. If you enlarge your fighter, he'll be kicking booty for a while. But you could also enlarge him to help him carry stuff, or to help him climb something, or to reach something, or to make it so something cannot pin him down, or so he cannot be caught in a web or net. You have options. All you can do with magic missile is damage creatures, and only damage creatures.
We can experience a thousand and one different situations while playing a D&D/Pathfinder campaign, so it's generally better to be prepared. Being able to conserve your spells, help you party, and adapt to different situations is what separates a good wizard from a wand of fireball.
.
..
...
....
.....
I like ducks. ^-^
Viva la Ducks!
::
Aye, I can see your games are very team-focused!
..and so aye, to build a strong team each character needs to perform their chosen role to the best of their abilities - and if another character can perform the same role/do the same role better, while spending less resources, then ya'll going to need to rethink the character!
::
With our lot tho the games are less team focused - we still play as a team, eventually, after the characters have learnt to play as a team together.
Before this time things are very chaotic.
There are little to no attempts at creating a party who's members are intended to synergise to form a stronger whole. If someone makes a healer, we get a healer - otherwise we have to make do for as long as we can.
During the early levels the characters are still finding their feet as a group -- there are sometimes battles for dominance and inter-party conflicts can occur.
-.o Sometimes the DM has to hammer them a little..
So aye, there are many sub-optimal choices made (regarding team synergy) - and we encourage the players to choose spells there character would want/use - Flamboyant character? Flamboyant spells! Sneaky sod? Sneaky spells!
*Eventually*, assuming they survive, concessions are made, lessons learnt and a steps are taken to work as a team - it's around the later levels we start to see spell choices/character builds that incorporate 'the team' - simply because by this point said character tends to think of themself as part of a team and has come to factor the abilities of the team when making design choices.
Before then tho, force multipliers, while not actively avoided, are less of a sure bet - simply because we cannot bank on the forces to be willing and available for multiplication (..or even worth being multiplied.)
::
So aye, stuff! Personally I'd love to see more characters working together from the start - brothers, sisters, old friends and lovers and all that!
QUACK
If there's four of you, and you're engaging 8 kobolds and they're fighting you like kobolds mean it (could be traps in the area, they're taking cover, using ranged weapons, etc), then instead of trying to hit a kobold with scorching ray, magic missile, or flaming sphere, dive behind a meat-shield (+4 AC vs ranged attacks), and drop a sleep, enlarge person, heroism, or summon monster II and lay down the law.
I don't disagree that some of these spells could be effective, nor do I disagree that every wizard should have a few utility spells (I consider buff spells as utility spells, since Bull's Strength and the like have uses outside of combat), but of the 4 you mentioned, only sleep is a "save or suck" spell, and I think Sleep is a horrible spell. Strike 1: its limited by HD. Strike 2: it's enchantment (compulsion [mind-affecting], and therefore a significant number of NPCs and monsters have resistance or immunity. Strike 3: it is a sleep effect, and therefore a significant number of NPCs and monsters have resistance or immunity.
Actually, your post talked more about spells that were NOT "save or suck" than that were. You mentioned summon spells, haste, buffing, enlarge person, heroism...
I agree that they can be effective, but none of the above are SoS.
But yeah, the reason I mentioned the protection from evil bit with the fighter is because I tend to view D&D as a team game. The fighter has a very specific role most of the time, and that's deal damage. He's vulnerable to stuff like charms and domination, but if you have enough love to spare a 1st level spell for him, he's outright immune to such nonsense.
Another knock against SoS spells... Protection from Evil/Chaos/et al.
Jason
PS. I noticed when I logged on that this would be my 400th post. Not mentioning it because I think it gives me "gamer cred", I just think it's cool that this post falls on a "century".
Sleep is a horrible spell. Strike 1: its limited by HD. Strike 2: it's enchantment (compulsion [mind-affecting], and therefore a significant number of NPCs and monsters have resistance or immunity. Strike 3: it is a sleep effect, and therefore a significant number of NPCs and monsters have resistance or immunity.
Strike 4: It's a full round cast. And that's a biggie, especially against enemies that are both smart and usually armed with ranged weapons. Kobolds aren't stupid fellas; the chance is large they know to move a lot when a mage is casting and even if they don't, they sure know to pin him full of bolts and/or burning flasks of oil.
I think Sleep is a horrible spell. Strike 1: its limited by HD. Strike 2: it's enchantment (compulsion [mind-affecting], and therefore a significant number of NPCs and monsters have resistance or immunity. Strike 3: it is a sleep effect, and therefore a significant number of NPCs and monsters have resistance or immunity.
Re: Strikes 2 and 3; there aren't a lot of those things that you tend to run into at levels 1-2, which are pretty much when you're going to use Sleep.
Strike 4, incidentally, would be its full round casting time. (Edit: I got ninja'd on that one.)
But, for all of that, it's still, if a little bit situationally, a great spell when you're level 1 or 2 -- it really does win fights, and it has terrific range compared to almost every other 1st level spell. At levels 1-2 of a campaign I'm currently playing in, we had a lot of fights with human/humanoid bandits that started at 100+ feet -- Sleep is the undisputed king of that kind of combat.
Of course, around level 3 you'll never, ever use it again -- but for its brief time it's not a joke.
.
..
...
....
.....
I'd say Ashiel's examples of spells/tactics that make the best use of a team are pretty much bang on!
They are well mapped/thought out/explored and make for interesting reading.
::
Of course, everyone will have their own criteria for why a spell isn't on their spell list, just as the effectiveness of a spell can be greatly effected by the (needs of the) situation at hand..
::
Regarding Sleep :.:::.
Sleep has it's uses at lower levels - of course, it's usefulness will depend on the types of creatures you expect to encounter..
Some things Sleep is useful for:
..and of course, dropping the mind-controlled/drunk low level low-will save party fighter. For their own good.
I AIN'T GETTING ON NO FLYING BOAT FOO!
I'd say Ashiel's examples of spells/tactics that make the best use of a team are pretty much bang on!
They are well mapped/thought out/explored and make for interesting reading.
Thank you Benign. I appreciate it. ^-^
As to the conversation about sleep, it really does have a solid number of drawbacks, but it would surely be overpowered if it didn't! If it were so much as a standard action, it'd be waaay too good. 100ft + 10 ft/level area of effect save or suck that targets will saves as a standard action? Nasty it would be.
Nah, the trick to using sleep properly comes back to that teamwork thing. Imagine for a moment you're a squishy wizard, sorcerer (fey sorcerer maybe?), or even a bard. You dive behind your favorite meatshield, which gives you a +4 cover bonus to your AC. If you have light armor (bard), or even mage armor, you're looking at a 18-20 AC from ranged attacks; and if you get the spell off, hurray!
Sleep is also pretty nasty used as a surprise. If you begin casting on the surprise round and finish on the first round, you can actually get sleep off before anyone else acts (if you win the initiative of course).
Finally, sleep's range means you can probably get it off without people noticing you. At 100ft + 10ft per level, you can reach someone out to 120ft (counting the 20ft radius spread from point of origin) with the spell. If you've got cover, you can hide while doing it, and potentially capitalize on up to a -12 penalty on their Perception checks from distance. Of course, this is extremely situational, but it could be useful for taking out a watchguard on a tower or something for a moment.
But indeed, sleep isn't perfect. Then again, I'm glad it isn't. It is an adept spell after all, and a 1st level human adept can easily sport sleep 2/day with a DC 15+ save DC; and since a group of 3 1st level adepts is a CR 1 encounter, I'm happy that it does have so many weaknesses; or else only elves would make it past 1st level. ^-^"
I find odd reading people assigning all that power to stinking cloud. Unless very favorable terrain conditions, the cloud forces monsters to retreat in cover.
And even in that case, if you drop it on half of the enemies (since bringing it up is a counterpoint to "but blasting is awesome for lots of weak enemies") and they retreat in cover, your party then gets to gang up on the un-clouded half in a bad way, then fight the clouded ones thereafter.
You mean, only the clouded half should retreat? Why? If the platoon of hobgoblins retreats in cover strategically, not only the debuffed ones will do it. They ALL will do it.
Sleep is also pretty nasty used as a surprise. If you begin casting on the surprise round and finish on the first round, you can actually get sleep off before anyone else acts (if you win the initiative of course).
Can you cast sleep on the surprise round?
Full-Round Action
A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.
Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step.
Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions detail which actions allow this option.
Cast a Spell
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
It seems you can't even begin casting it as a standard action, 'cause I can't find anything that says you can do full-round action casting as a standard action... But I might very well have missed something.
That said, I love sleep as a spell. I think it's balanced more or less perfectly; I might have preferred if it was a liiittle lower effect at 1st level but scaled instead, but generally, I think it's a spell that other spells should use as a guide line for power level.
You mean, only the clouded half should retreat? Why? If the platoon of hobgoblins retreats in cover strategically, not only the debuffed ones will do it. They ALL will do it.
If the group is spread, not all of them will have cover, so they'll be forced to retreat out in the open - leaving them vulnerable for PC archers and blasters, as well as expendable movement hinderers (such as grease) to further cut them of.
Now, this is all theoretical and very situational, which only further proves the point: Sometimes Stinking Cloud will be a combat winner, sometimes it will be an important tactical aid, and sometimes it will just buy the PC's some time (which, with a caster in the party, may often be useful). It's not an auto-win spell but it CAN win the battle sometimes, and more often than not provides a good effect - it's more reliable and versatile than, say, confusion.
Sleep is also pretty nasty used as a surprise. If you begin casting on the surprise round and finish on the first round, you can actually get sleep off before anyone else acts (if you win the initiative of course).Can you cast sleep on the surprise round?
Full-Round Action
A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.
Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step.
Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions detail which actions allow this option.
It seems you can't even begin casting it as a standard action, 'cause I can't find anything that says you can do full-round action casting as a standard action... But I might very well have missed something.Cast a Spell
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
You didn't get quite far enough in the full-round action description. You got to the explanation that some full-round actions can be taken as a standard action (such as Charging) under the right circumstances, but apparently stopped there. If you read further, you find that you can start and complete a full-round action over multiple rounds, and directs you to standard actions. Where you find the following:
Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.
This means if you get the surprise round, you can begin casting on the surprise, and then you can finish the casting as part of your next turn with another standard action. Likewise, you can use this option to cast while moving. For example, you can move 30ft while casting summon monster I or sleep, but you won't get it off until the next round; but it can be useful for getting cover before and after you drop the bomb.
Does empowered spell add extra dice? I thought you just multiplied the result by 1.5.13th level wizard, empowered, maximized, intensified Burning Hands. 5d4 +40.
Hmm.
BH does d4/caster level, max 5d4.
Intensify moves this to +5dice, so 10d4.
Empower is +5d4 dmg (+50%)
Maximize turns the 10d4 into 40.
So, it's actually 40 (base spell) + 5d4.Either a 4th level spell slot, or use metamagic mastery to pay for it for free once a day. Still a base 11+Stat save, tho.
==Aelryinth
I'm breaking it out for the OP, but because it doesn't stack with Maximize you have to be explicit on the amount of added dmg. Writing +5d4 is easier then writing +50% of 10d4...since you aren't rolling the 10d4 because of maximize.
===Aelryinth
Text
Ah, I see now. We've always treated the 1 round casting time as kinda sacred; already in 3.0 when haste gave you an extra action we ruled that 1 round casts took all your (non-free, non-5ft. step) actions for a turn.
Still, then what's the difference between a 1 round cast being a full-round action and if it had been a standard action completed during the next turn? Why does it have to state it as a full-round action, when anyone can still move and cast at full effect?
Also, it seems to not make sense in another way.
It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.
What happens if I begin casting a sleep, have it's effect just before the beginning of turn 2, and then just skip completing the spell with a standard action (I can see forbidding it voluntarily, but what if I'm unable to finish casting due to something else?)? It seems like very weird rules.
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.What happens if I begin casting a sleep, have it's effect just before the beginning of turn 2, and then just skip completing the spell with a standard action (I can see forbidding it voluntarily, but what if I'm unable to finish casting due to something else?)? It seems like very weird rules.
It works like this.
A round is 6 seconds long. Two rounds is 12 seconds.Our wizard (let's call her Serrila) is fighting a group of goblins with her friend Sigfried (he's a fighter). She decides that she should try to put them to sleep, but she's not in a very good place relative to them; they can hit her too easily before she finishes her spell, so she dives behind Sigfried as a move action (1/2 the 6 seconds). She the begins casting the spell with her standard (the other half of the 6 seconds) and nothing happens this round. The goblins shoot at her, but she manages to avoid it because Sigfried is in the way.
On round 2, she is still "casting" the spell. It's not done casting as it normally would be at the start of her turn. It's not done casting until she finally takes the standard action to complete it. So she decides to finish casting. She decides to finish casting before she moves (the first half of round 2) and finishes. The spell now goes off like a normal spell. She now has 1 move action left to use.
All Serrila is doing is taking the 6 seconds it would take to cast this spell and splitting it over 2 rounds. You still have to complete the spell before it can come into effect. In this case, the spell comes into effect in the middle to end of your turn, instead of the beginning, because that's when she finally completes her spell.
Or in mathematical terms, if she has 12 seconds to act, she spends 3 seconds moving, 6 seconds casting, 3 seconds moving.
Want to quickly set fire to large portions of the hut from range? FIREBALL. (Assuming you have a caster, they're happy to spend a 3rd level spell slot, they're not drunk etc)
Nah!
You don't {*hick*} know me!
Even if you are piss drunk, you can still cast FIREBALL!
Seriously, there is a rule for it and everything!
"Drunkenness
Just like drugs, alcohol can be abused and have significant negative effects. In general, a character can consume a number of alcoholic beverages equal to 1 plus double his Constitution modifier before being sickened for 1 hour equal to the number of drinks above this maximum. Particularly exotic or strong forms of alcohol might be treated as normal drugs. Those who regularly abuse alcohol might eventually develop a moderate addiction."
|
|
Daze Monster and Scare are 2nd level.
Deep Slumber is 3rd level.Conversely, Ray of Enfeeblement (1st level) will be useful at every character level, and Scorching Ray (2nd level) maxes out at 12d6 damage (even more if you crit).
Yes daze monster and scare and deep slumber all have limited useful range...you know what doesn't? Web, glitter dust, slow, stinking cloud, sleet storm. Using a couple of of horrible SoS spells to say SoS sucks makes it hardly true.
OK, I wasn't considering +5 Tomes AND +6 items (what item is +6 on save DCs???). I normally play low-magic campaigns so I've never encountered either, much less both. However, even giving you both of the above, most monsters have 2 good saves and 1 bad save. Using YOUR math, you are twice as likely to be LESS effective (ie. have a bigger chance of no effect) with the same spell, the higher level you get. And thats after sinking a boatload of GP into magic items. If you didn't have access to those particular items (say, your DM was running an AP, which has pre-gen items), you don't even come close. Add in the fact that your opponents ALSO get magic items, and the fact that magic items bumping saves are more common than those helping your touch AC...
5 for levels. As for items...resistence is up to +5 and luck is +1 and I THINK there is a insight +1. So you are looking at +6 (bad saves) +5 (res) +1 (luck) and +1 (insight) for a grand total of +13 increases over 20 levels IF you get all the save items. For spells, you looking at +2.5 level up, +2.5 tomes, +3 (enhancement) +8 (spell levels) for a total of +16 (and that doesn't even include feats). That means that the for the bad save to keep up, you need to increase it by +6 to keep even...which you can with +6 stat items...which is a LOT of loot. And that JUST breaks even. Not gets better. Remember we are targeting the WEAK saves. And yes that is what all those wonderful knoweldge skills are for...so you know which saves to target.
You mean like you can easily beat the saves of SOME critters? I think you are underestimating the effectiveness of touch attacks. Your touch attacks become MORE effective the higher you get. Take a 20th level fighter. His touch AC is probably around 15. My example of a 20th level wizard would hit him 95% of the time, and as I've said, its not a min-maxed example.
Also, Point Blank shot only increases the chance of your rays hitting their targets, so I hardly call that a wasted feat. Then you can take Precise Shot to ignore the penalty AND get the +1 bonus to your attack. Meanwhile, the "SoS" wizard will be spending the same number of feats to take Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration, so I don't buy the argument that this is a feat-heavy build.
You do realize that blasty wizards need spell penetration and greater spell penetration as much as the SoS guys right? Scorching ray that you keep harping on about is spell resistence: yes. So is fireball, burning hands, magic missle, cone of cold, etc etc. Unless your play with spell compendium with all those conjuration blasty spells, you need it probably more so then the SoS guys because conjuration SoS has no SR. So yes doings rays focus is heavily feat taxed.
What happens if I begin casting a sleep, have it's effect just before the beginning of turn 2, and then just skip completing the spell with a standard action (I can see forbidding it voluntarily, but what if I'm unable to finish casting due to something else?)? It seems like very weird rules.It works like this.
On round 2, she is still "casting" the spell. It's not done casting as it normally would be at the start of her turn. It's not done casting until she finally takes the standard action to complete it.
Yes, but the rules for 1-round spells clearly state they go of before the turn after the character begins casting the spell, not when he's finished the last action of it.
While I agree that what you're claiming could very well be the RAI, it doesn't seem to be the RAW. I could also see RAI being that it would go of just before caster's third turn - that the "It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell" was more or less a typo and should be finishes castingthe spell, not began.
What happens if I begin casting a sleep, have it's effect just before the beginning of turn 2, and then just skip completing the spell with a standard action (I can see forbidding it voluntarily, but what if I'm unable to finish casting due to something else?)? It seems like very weird rules.It works like this.
On round 2, she is still "casting" the spell. It's not done casting as it normally would be at the start of her turn. It's not done casting until she finally takes the standard action to complete it.
Yes, but the rules for 1-round spells clearly state they go of before the turn after the character begins casting the spell, not when he's finished the last action of it.
While I agree that what you're claiming could very well be the RAI, it doesn't seem to be the RAW. I could also see RAI being that it would go of just before caster's third turn - that the "It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell" was more or less a typo and should be finishes castingthe spell, not began.
Well I guess it's a RAW way to turn 1 round spells into "almost a standard action" spells then. I, however, wouldn't advocate that (and I'm pretty big on following the rules) any more than I would advocate drown-healing or Pun Pun; simply because it seems like a horrible abuse of something that you should really appreciate as an option you probably didn't know you had.
Oh, wait, wait, wait!
I was just reading it, and ha, we got even those who would argue RAW all day long. It says you may resume acting normally when you complete the spell. So it really doesn't matter if it begins just before your turn, because you cannot do anything else until you complete the spell. Thus is you begin casting on round 1, monster appears at the beginning of your turn on round 2, then you cannot do anything else until you complete that casting; then you can resume acting freely (such as taking your movement).
Though you end up with pretty much the same effect either way.
Personally I prefer the way it worked back in 3E. If you used a maximized fireball, bam 90 damage with a reflex save for half. It kept blasting a bit more useful. However, in 3.5 they nerfed it so that you had to determine the damage it would have rolled, then add 1/2 of that to the 60 that you get for maximizing it (which is amazingly contrived).
I also heard that Pathfinder only counts the dice portion of stuff as the random variable, meaning empower is officially really stupid useless on healing spells and things like magic missile, since in previous editions you would have rolled 3d8+15 and then multiplied the result by 1.5, because the +X was counted as part of the variable (18-39), but with this interpretation (which is different from both 3E and 3.5) you would roll (3d8*1.5)+15, resulting in an average of 35 healing instead of 42.75, making Empower a complete joke.
Personally, thanks to the miracle of house rules, my group is using the 3E method. You wanna spend a pair of feats to get empower and maximize for your damage or healing spells? Ok, 3d8+15 healing becomes 58, and 10d6 becomes 90, save for half (it's now effectively an 8th level spell with a 3rd level save DC). The way I see it...if it wasn't broke, don't fix it.
You mean, only the clouded half should retreat? Why? If the platoon of hobgoblins retreats in cover strategically, not only the debuffed ones will do it. They ALL will do it.
Uh, so they all run into the stinking cloud and stay there until they blow their saves?
It's not too hard to find a way to make them pay for that.
Uh, so they all run into the stinking cloud and stay there until they blow their saves?
It's not too hard to find a way to make them pay for that.
Umm no, they all retreat.. defend their friends and don't let you fully capitalize on their current lack of ability to use their numbers.
Spells like this need to be properly timed and placed. Done well they are very strong. Done wrong and they are a waste of time.
-James
Equally true for all spells.