| 25 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Added to the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level bard 3, cleric 4, inquisitor 3, sorcerer/wizard 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target 1 living creature
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Will partial (see text); Spell Resistance yes
You fill a target with such profound remorse that it begins to
harm itself. Each round, the target must save or deal 1d8 points
of damage + its Strength modifier to itself using an item held
in its hand or with unarmed attacks. If the creature saves, it is
instead frozen with sorrow, can take no actions, and takes a –2
penalty to Armor Class.
So it looks like this spell takes the target out of the fight for 1 round per level regardless of saves. I think maybe it was meant to be "Will negates and Will partial (see text)" such that if you make an initial save the spell does nothing. Or perhaps after your first successful save, you get that one round of inaction and then the spell ends. Because from where I stand, even if you make every single save, you're immobile with -2 to AC for 1 round per level.
** spoiler omitted **
So it looks like this spell takes the target out of the fight for 1 round per level regardless of saves. I think maybe it was meant to be "Will negates and Will partial (see text)" such that if you make an initial save the spell does nothing. Or perhaps after your first successful save, you get that one round of inaction and then the spell ends. Because from where I stand, even if you make every single save, you're immobile with -2 to AC for 1 round per level.
O__o
Hmm. It's probably best to not save, because then you actually get to use your actions. If you have multiple attacks, you'd only need to use one of them against yourself :)
Hmm. It's probably best to not save, because then you actually get to use your actions. If you have multiple attacks, you'd only need to use one of them against yourself :)
I think this is equivalent to the Confusion result where you spend your turn doing nothing but stabbing yourself (since it repeats the fact that you do 1d8 base damage regardless of your wepaon), but you could be right. Then again, it's still a pretty rotten deal for a spellcaster who gets hit by this, whatever way you shake it.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Didn't write that one, but maybe the intent was that on a successful save you get the "no move, -2 AC, etc." result for 1 round.
That would keep it in line with effects like fear, where you get shaken for 1 round on a successful save (though this condition is worse than shaken, of course; but, unlike fear you only get 1 target vs. an area).
It still might be too much, since you could spam this spell and effectively neutralize a single target that was not immune to mind-affecting or didn't have friends to remove the effect (or prevent you from casting).
In any case, I'm not offering RAI, just supposing along with you about how to use the spell without it being broken.
Didn't write that one, but maybe the intent was that on a successful save you get the "no move, -2 AC, etc." result for 1 round.
That would keep it in line with effects like fear, where you get shaken for 1 round on a successful save (though this condition is worse than shaken, of course; but, unlike fear you only get 1 target vs. an area).
It still might be too much, since you could spam this spell and effectively neutralize a single target that was not immune to mind-affecting or didn't have friends to remove the effect (or prevent you from casting).
In any case, I'm not offering RAI, just supposing along with you about how to use the spell without it being broken.
Seriously guys, you produce awesome stuff, but you should keep an eye on stuff like this. There is a spell in APG able to stagger, at best, with no save. Means automatic crippling of all melee, guaanteed.
This is worse.
I apologize this is no meant to be aggressive, but is not a matter of an italic part missing, or a wrong radius, but of how spells (or feats)are conceived.
This could work the other way around with stuff like the post errata, still terrible Cockatrice Strike.
Didn't write that one, but maybe the intent was that on a successful save you get the "no move, -2 AC, etc." result for 1 round.
That would keep it in line with effects like fear, where you get shaken for 1 round on a successful save (though this condition is worse than shaken, of course; but, unlike fear you only get 1 target vs. an area).
It still might be too much, since you could spam this spell and effectively neutralize a single target that was not immune to mind-affecting or didn't have friends to remove the effect (or prevent you from casting).
In any case, I'm not offering RAI, just supposing along with you about how to use the spell without it being broken.
Yup, that was one of my two possible thoughts as well. I'll probably go with my other idea (Will negates, and if you fail the first save, then the rest). It seems slightly weak compared to Confusion, though I worry that it may be too weak compared to Hideous Laughter after that nerf. I agree with you that the guaranteed round of inaction can be a big deal--the Fey Sorcerer Laughing Touch ability was pretty much the cornerstone of our entire team for Council of Thieves, and that still required a melee touch and couldn't be repeated.
mock-outraged sidenote: What!? Something not designed by Jason Nelson in UM? Paizo is slipping since the APG! (Seriously, I remember when I first got the APG early seeing you in threads clarifying as the writer of certain sections and seemingly having designed like 60-70% or so of my favorite material in the book...and then selective spell of course, but no one's perfect ^_~)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't write that one, but maybe the intent was that on a successful save you get the "no move, -2 AC, etc." result for 1 round.
That would keep it in line with effects like fear, where you get shaken for 1 round on a successful save (though this condition is worse than shaken, of course; but, unlike fear you only get 1 target vs. an area).
It still might be too much, since you could spam this spell and effectively neutralize a single target that was not immune to mind-affecting or didn't have friends to remove the effect (or prevent you from casting).
In any case, I'm not offering RAI, just supposing along with you about how to use the spell without it being broken.
Seriously guys, you produce awesome stuff, but you should keep an eye on stuff like this. There is a spell in APG able to stagger, at best, with no save. Means automatic crippling of all melee, guaanteed.
This is worse.
I apologize this is no meant to be aggressive, but is not a matter of an italic part missing, or a wrong radius, but of how spells (or feats)are conceived.
This could work the other way around with stuff like the post errata, still terrible Cockatrice Strike.
I don't know the rules intent of the person who wrote that spell, so I can't really answer what effect they intended it to be, though I would feel fairly confident that it was not a 1-round-per-level auto-screw, save-is-irrelevant spell at 3rd/4th level.
All I can say is that sometimes even with smart people designing and smart people developing and smart people editing, stuff will fall through the cracks. One would hope such will be few and far between, and in a book crammed with hyper-specific rules text, dropping a word or phrase means a lot more than it does in a novel with the same word count.
With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I can reliably state that when it does happen, it is quite evident the eagle eyes on the boards are all over it. :)
Hopefully errata or clarification will be forthcoming soon. As always, flag it for the FAQ and hopefully one of the duly designated Paizo devs will be along to clarify sooner rather than later.
Didn't write that one, but maybe the intent was that on a successful save you get the "no move, -2 AC, etc." result for 1 round.
That would keep it in line with effects like fear, where you get shaken for 1 round on a successful save (though this condition is worse than shaken, of course; but, unlike fear you only get 1 target vs. an area).
It still might be too much, since you could spam this spell and effectively neutralize a single target that was not immune to mind-affecting or didn't have friends to remove the effect (or prevent you from casting).
In any case, I'm not offering RAI, just supposing along with you about how to use the spell without it being broken.
Seriously guys, you produce awesome stuff, but you should keep an eye on stuff like this. There is a spell in APG able to stagger, at best, with no save. Means automatic crippling of all melee, guaanteed.
This is worse.
I apologize this is no meant to be aggressive, but is not a matter of an italic part missing, or a wrong radius, but of how spells (or feats)are conceived.
This could work the other way around with stuff like the post errata, still terrible Cockatrice Strike.
I don't know the rules intent of the person who wrote that spell, so I can't really answer what effect they intended it to be, though I would feel fairly confident that it was not a 1-round-per-level auto-screw, save-is-irrelevant spell at 3rd/4th level.
All I can say is that sometimes even with smart people designing and smart people developing and smart people editing, stuff will fall through the cracks. One would hope such will be few and far between, and in a book crammed with hyper-specific rules text, dropping a word or phrase means a lot more than it does in a novel with the same word count.
With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I can reliably state that when it does happen, it is quite evident the eagle eyes on the boards are all over it. :)
Hopefully...
Sean is being a super workhorse today and clarifying in all these threads with near-Jacobsian speed. Perhaps he will find his way here?
I know what you mean about something always slipping through--I can't agree with Kaiyanwang's sentiment: even the pros make mistakes, and Paizo's products are awesome in this regard; there were far more issues with balance per page in Wizards' 3.5 releases. Of course, I'm a big fan and want to do my best to make sure the next printing will be even better (and if they do consider me for that Developer job that got posted so long ago, I'd love to help find these things beforehand too!).
I never used to post this kind of stuff back in 3.0 and 3.5 because I can always just houserule it for my home group. But here we have a company that's awesome, that listens, and that makes substantial changes in the second and further printings if such are warranted, so I hope these threads and questions are helping them do just that (if they aren't, I'd be more than happy not to post them).
I'm not liking this. Taking you out of combat for even as little as 1 round when you make your saving throw is crazy. A sorcerer that knows this spell can cast it over and over against the big bad guy while the party beats it to death.
I hope we get some massive errata on this.
Jason N`s conjecture that Failed Save should = 1 round duration
was also what I was thought the most plausible INTENT for this spell was.
The self-harm effect on FAILED Save definitely ALSO needs Errata to give it wording saying you take no other actions EXCEPT the self-harm action (wording which Confusion has) ...Or just reference the Harm Self option of Confusion for less worries.
I hope we get some massive errata on this.
Ah, but the Paizo policy is that no Errata can be issued until something goes to re-print, however long that may take.
Cut and paste error with the level maybe? I could see this working for a level 8 spell.
Cut and paste error with the level maybe? I could see this working for a level 8 spell.
It would have to be some cut and paste error--it's appropriately listed as early-access to bards and inquisitors, and it appears on the condensed spell lists for each class at the appropriate level (3rd for bards and inquisitors, 4th for cleric and sor/wizard).
I expect it works as follows:
Make the initial save = spell has no effect
Fail the initial save = make a save at the start of each of your turns where fail means hurt yourself and pass means do nothing. This lasts 1 rd/lvl.
I expect it works as follows:
Make the initial save = spell has no effect
Fail the initial save = make a save at the start of each of your turns where fail means hurt yourself and pass means do nothing. This lasts 1 rd/lvl.
Yep, as I said above, that's how I'm going to run it, for now, anyway. At least in my home games. If it isn't errataed, I don't look forward to seeing it in PFS.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I expect it works as follows:
Make the initial save = spell has no effect
Fail the initial save = make a save at the start of each of your turns where fail means hurt yourself and pass means do nothing. This lasts 1 rd/lvl.
Seems like a reasonable way to rule it.
I don't know the rules intent of the person who wrote that spell, so I can't really answer what effect they intended it to be, though I would feel fairly confident that it was not a 1-round-per-level auto-screw, save-is-irrelevant spell at 3rd/4th level.
All I can say is that sometimes even with smart people designing and smart people developing and smart people editing, stuff will fall through the cracks. One would hope such will be few and far between, and in a book crammed with hyper-specific rules text, dropping a word or phrase means a lot more than it does in a novel with the same word count.
With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I can reliably state that when it does happen, it is quite evident the eagle eyes on the boards are all over it. :)
Jason, again, I say this with all the esteem I have for the Paizo team: it's something like the auto-stun of the gunslinger: one should not even THINK about invalidating conditions with no save, in my humble opinion.
And a lot of times stuff is not errata-ed, or is errataed partially. See the good old cockatrice strike, with the BAB requirement fixed but the impossible chain of prerequisites to trigger it remaining the same.
Now, in the whole amount of stuff you guys put out for each book, it remains a minor thing (I alway say that APG is 4 old completes + the A&EG and more) but IMHO you should take care of it or at least be more systematic with errata.
But too much errata creates annoying bloat of out-of-the-book sources. So, remains either
a) not make erratas if not of the most glaring stuff (but the book quality remains lower than the ideal) or
b) avoid glaring error before. Look at the rapier, make the falcata 1hand only too, and WHAM you make a decent exotic weapon AND don't invalidate every other DPR one in a single move.
Sorry for being obnoxious, but is my gut feeling.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a funny thing working in game publishing, and I don't disagree with the notion of "do more careful edits," but consider exactly how many exactingly detailed rules elements are in a book of this size. Count em up and see.
Sometimes errors happen because of document evolution (there was some kind of artifact of this in one of the APG druid archetypes I think, where one rule referenced an earlier version of another rule I had written but had later changed), sometimes a missing word (as in the missing "instantaneous spell" from the Selective Spell feat) or punctuation, or sometimes a thing which seems clear to the writer but is obviously less clear to others (like the "wild shape at -2 levels at 6th level" bit from the animal shamans in the APG and in UM). Some things you have two authors working on similar pieces and you get interesting places of overlap or perhaps conflict.
Authors send in their text. Developers develop it. Editors edit it, including cutting some stuff out entirely. Some cut stuff is moved to other books. Some is sacrificed for space. Some is stuff that seemed like a neat idea to the author but that Central Command doesn't think fits Golarion or the directions they want to go with the PF system... and some just ends up in the trash for any number of reasons.
I like to read product that I've worked on just so I can go through and see what made it through, what didn't, what got changed, what got art orders, and so on. Sometimes I notice things that I oopsied in writing, but too late to do anything about it; sometimes things get changed. Either way, Paizo makes its decisions about what it wants in its products and makes them in good faith and with good skill.
I'll say again: Count up the number of rules elements in the book. Then count up the number of errors (after ascertaining that they are, in fact, errors, and not intentionally made that way). Check your percentages.
I'd bet that the book still gets an A+. Is it going to be utterly and infallibly perfect? Probably not. Is that perfection a reasonable expectation, no matter how many people were to work on it? Also probably not.
But, in this subject I don't speak for Paizo, cuz I don't work in house. Yes, I write a lot of stuff for them, but my tag says "Contributor." Since I know most of the guys, I can assure you that Paizo's developers and editors are good at what they do and work very hard. It is my opinion, and only that, however, that in a book as jam-packed with ultra-specific text as this, mistakes WILL happen, no matter how hard you try to control them. Because of the expertise of the people involved, that number will be small, very small I'd argue, but I doubt whether it can ever be eliminated entirely.
On that point, reasonable people may disagree, but that's my two bits.
some good stuff about the process
See Pg XX?
Until you have to make fun of your own editing foibles its ok to be at least limited to singular instances in a book.
From the thread title, I thought this thread was going to be about someone very, very unhappy with Ultimate Magic.
I'd bet that the book still gets an A+.
I always say APG is maybe the best rule splat I ever bought. I'm creating a setting currently with my players and the class section inspired us ON SIGHT for parts of the gameworld (the fighter, paladin, inquisitor and cavalier parts mainly). "look at this! could be cool for-- WHOOOAAAA"
And I already said you guys put a lot of stuff in books, so the quality IS high indeed.
Since you explained the process, I see what you mean - but at least about "half erratas" my point remains.
Please remember this comes from a true fan of the RPG line ;)
Good Stuff+1
+1 from me too.
I think it's prudent to remember that only those few mistakes that weren't caught are available to the public. All of the mistakes that were caught somewhere in the process will never be seen.
Plus, at least in the beginning of a book's publishing life, the mistakes will be pointed out much faster than the cool things people have been able to use the book for :)
Hey, I copped to THREE instances in the APG alone! :)some good stuff about the processSee Pg XX?
Until you have to make fun of your own editing foibles its ok to be at least limited to singular instances in a book.
But you didn't have to do a 6 page spread in a later book with that in 50+ pt font and have the pages of the spread be either mirror writing or upside down. (So much love for the original Clanbook: Malkavian)
Only to do the same thing, what, 2 years later in another book.
I will admit it was fun to watch Richard Dansky squirm about it while playing a demo of Wraith: The Great War he was running.
Hmm..
This one has a bit of an error in it. The spell was meant to end after the "do nothing round" if you made your save, not continue on, round after round.
I will see to it that this get fixed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Awesome! You're the man, Jason.
A thought though--It's still pretty darn scary due to the fact that it takes out a single enemy for at least one round even on a successful save as a level 4 spell--it seems rather favorable compared to Irresistible Dance, for instance (fewer penalties, even with the self-attack factored in, but it has the potential to last longer, has the same minimum duration of 1 round of inactivity on a successful save, and it doesn't require the caster to touch the target, plus it's 4 levels lower).
Hmm..
This one has a bit of an error in it. The spell was meant to end after the "do nothing round" if you made your save, not continue on, round after round.
I will see to it that this get fixed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingAwesome! You're the man, Jason.
A thought though--It's still pretty darn scary due to the fact that it takes out a single enemy for at least one round even on a successful save as a level 4 spell--it seems rather favorable compared to Irresistible Dance, for instance (fewer penalties, even with the self-attack factored in, but it has the potential to last longer, has the same minimum duration of 1 round of inactivity on a successful save, and it doesn't require the caster to touch the target, plus it's 4 levels lower).
In fact, I don't get why the level 4 even after the correction O_o
In fact, I don't get why the level 4 even after the correction O_o
I'll chime in and say that an automatic "you get no actions" - even for one round - is a really, really bad idea for a spell. Maybe period. BBEGs will be completely moot above PC level 9 if this spell is allowed.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Hmm..
This one has a bit of an error in it. The spell was meant to end after the "do nothing round" if you made your save, not continue on, round after round.
I will see to it that this get fixed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingAwesome! You're the man, Jason.
A thought though--It's still pretty darn scary due to the fact that it takes out a single enemy for at least one round even on a successful save as a level 4 spell--it seems rather favorable compared to Irresistible Dance, for instance (fewer penalties, even with the self-attack factored in, but it has the potential to last longer, has the same minimum duration of 1 round of inactivity on a successful save, and it doesn't require the caster to touch the target, plus it's 4 levels lower).
+1 to this.
"Ranged effect that makes you automatically lose your next turn, even if you save, unless you are immune to mind-affecting or have SR I can't beat" = too good for a 4th level spell.
I think the base effect is plenty bad enough (save or else stab yourself for 1 rd/level) for 4th level, even with "Will negates." It's still a full-on take-out effect. IMO the "you lose a turn even if you save" is overkill.
]
+1 to this.
"Ranged effect that makes you automatically lose your next turn, even if you save, unless you are immune to mind-affecting or have SR I can't beat" = too good for a 4th level spell.
I think the base effect is plenty bad enough (save or else stab yourself for 1 rd/level) for 4th level, even with "Will negates." It's still a full-on take-out effect. IMO the "you lose a turn even if you save" is overkill.
What if it was a full round casting time ? Still too good ? I think it is I am just looking for another opinion.
Hmm..
This one has a bit of an error in it. The spell was meant to end after the "do nothing round" if you made your save, not continue on, round after round.
I will see to it that this get fixed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingAwesome! You're the man, Jason.
A thought though--It's still pretty darn scary due to the fact that it takes out a single enemy for at least one round even on a successful save as a level 4 spell--it seems rather favorable compared to Irresistible Dance, for instance (fewer penalties, even with the self-attack factored in, but it has the potential to last longer, has the same minimum duration of 1 round of inactivity on a successful save, and it doesn't require the caster to touch the target, plus it's 4 levels lower).
+1 to this.
"Ranged effect that makes you automatically lose your next turn, even if you save, unless you are immune to mind-affecting or have SR I can't beat" = too good for a 4th level spell.
I think the base effect is plenty bad enough (save or else stab yourself for 1 rd/level) for 4th level, even with "Will negates." It's still a full-on take-out effect. IMO the "you lose a turn even if you save" is overkill.
I know that agreeing with you is also agreeing with myself, but I have to agree here.
I just finished playing Council of Thieves as a player. Even at the highest levels of the campaign, the single most threatening ability that the party possessed was the (+9 initiative) Fey Sorcerer's Laughing Touch (and that requires an attack roll to hit). We pretty much destroyed the entire AP because of this ability combined with Paladin Smite. Iconic bosses often only got to take two actions because the GM had prebuffed their stats to make the game more fun. Only creatures with SR were safe, and he had Greater Spell Penetration so he could use Laughing Touch more reliably on those as well. And Laughing Touch is limited to only once per enemy per day, requires a touch attack, and still leaves them a move action (granted it's a 1st-level Sorcerer power, but it still was a huge effect for us--also it helps that Laughing Touch works on things that are immune to Mind-Affecting because it doesn't have the [Mind-Affecting] tag).
Based on the way that we often wound up splitting the party in CoT, I can say with fairly high confidence that an 8th-level Sorcerer with even the errataed version of Terrible Remorse (where the first save ends it) and Greater Spell Pentration teaming up with a single Paladin should be able to defeat the last three sections of the AP on their own except for the undead. With a hypothetical metamagic feat to affect undead with Terrible Remorse by using up a slot one level higher, I think they could take the whole thing.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Based on the way that we often wound up splitting the party in CoT, I can say with fairly high confidence that an 8th-level Sorcerer with even the errataed version of Terrible Remorse (where the first save ends it) and Greater Spell Pentration teaming up with a single Paladin should be able to defeat the last three sections of the AP on their own except for the undead. With a hypothetical metamagic feat to affect undead with Terrible Remorse by using up a slot one level higher, I think they could take the whole thing.
Such a feat is not hypothetical; check out Threnodic Spell in Ultimate Magic; however, it's a +2-level metamagic feat.
But, long story short, powers that make you force an enemy to lose a turn in exchange for your own standard action are usually a big win for the party, since (especially with bosses) they often have way more actions to spend than the BBEG. If the party loses an action, it still has the rest of the party to act. If the BBEG loses an action, it's curtains time.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hmm..
This one has a bit of an error in it. The spell was meant to end after the "do nothing round" if you made your save, not continue on, round after round.
I will see to it that this get fixed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I am wondering what item held in his hand Jason used to deal to himself 1d8 points of damage + his STR modifier on this obviously failed Will save against Terrible Remorse ;-)
Hmm..
This one has a bit of an error in it. The spell was meant to end after the "do nothing round" if you made your save, not continue on, round after round.
I will see to it that this get fixed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
That's uh, still incredibly, incredibly powerful. I mean, it won't even matter what level this spell is - it's flat out "You lose, no save. Well ok, roll to see if you lose even more then you already did."
Sorry to add to the necromancy here, but, assuming the description posted is accurate (my book is downstairs and I am getting ready to go to sleep), it doesn't say the target loses its action on a failed save, only that it damages itself. Doesn't say it takes an action to do so.
It may *look* ridiculous as the target punches itself in the face, then stabs at its foe, then punches itself in the face, etc, but magic does many ridiculous things. Someone posted that Confusion actually says that the target spends its turn/action being confused, but the quoted text doesn't say that.
Just a thought about how I first read it.
AJ
Yar!
Yes, I'm bringing this one back.
I think this spell, even with the errata, is still way too powerful for 4th level.
I shall compare it to two different spells of similar effect to show why I feel this.
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target 1 living creature
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Will partial (see text); Spell Resistance yes
You fill a target with such profound remorse that it begins to harm itself. Each round, the target must save or deal 1d8 points of damage + its Strength modifier to itself using an item held in its hand or with unarmed attacks. If the creature saves, it is instead frozen with sorrow for 1 round, during which time it can take no actions and takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, after which the spell ends.
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Will negates (see text); Spell Resistance yes
You cause a single opponent to become profoundly stricken with intense grief. He can take no actions, takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, and loses his Dexterity bonus (if any). He can attempt a new save each round to break the spell’s effect.
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range touch
Target living creature touched
Duration 1d4+1 rounds
Saving Throw Will partial; Spell Resistance yes
The subject feels an undeniable urge to dance and begins doing so, complete with foot shuffling and tapping. The spell effect makes it impossible for the subject to do anything other than caper and prance in place. The effect imposes a -4 penalty to Armor Class and a -10 penalty on Reflex saves, and it negates any Armor Class bonus granted by a shield the target holds. The dancing subject provokes attacks of opportunity each round on its turn. A successful Will save reduces the duration of this effect to 1 round.
So, Overwhelming Grief is open to more classes and can effect any creature (instead of only living creatures), is the same level as Terrible Remorse, but Overwhelming Grief does on a failed save what Terrible Remorse does on a successful save (albeit for one round instead of 1 round per level). Are these differences really enough to make these spell of the same level? Personally, I don't think so.
However, the BIGGER indicator that Terrible Remorse still needs more of an overhaul is found in comparing it to Irresistible Dance.
Irresistible Dance only has a V component as opposed to V & S for Terrible Remorse. Irresistible Dance’s range is TOUCH as opposed to close (25+5/2lvs) for Terrible Remorse. Both can only affect living creatures. Irresistible Dance last 1d4+1 rounds, as opposed to 1 round per level for Terrible Remorse (this means that the minimum duration for Terrible Remorse is longer than the maximum duration for Irresistible Dance). Both give SR (thank goodness). The penalties for Irresistible Dance are slightly more severe than those for Terrible Remorse, but that doesn't change the fact that both spells effectively take one enemy out of combat for one round regardless of the save. Irresistible Dance is a 6th/8th level spell, while Terrible Remorse is only a 3rd/4th level spell. That is a HUGE difference is spell level for the relatively SMALL difference is spell power/effect. Even if I had infinite 8th level spell slots, I'd still use Terrible Remorse over Irresistible Dance. For its level, it's simply better.
Can we seriously look at this spell again? It still needs help. The only thing I see going for it right now is that it allows for SR to outright stop it. Even then, unless/until it gets another revision, I think I'll be replacing "cannot take any actions on a failed save and the spell ends" to "becomes Staggered for 1 round on a failed save and the spell ends"
...
Also, if ajb47 is right, then Terrible Remorse, as currently written, is BETTER when the opponent makes their save then if they fail. I'd take "No actions and a penalty for 1 round" over "hurts itself only a little bit but can still act normally and hurt me for a duration" every time. Especially against a single BBEG (say, storm giant with class levels, or that ancient great wyrm red dragon. Have the bard make it cry by constantly telling it it's been a bad boy while waging his finger at it while the rest of us steal its hoard and then proceed to curb stomp it. Yes, the Red Dragon has SR, but that’s no guarantee. Still, I’d probably go apocalyptic on Storm Giants with this spell. No SR and decent treasure (average of 11600 gp worth per giant on medium progression)).
Also, a Wand of Terrible Remorse is deadly. 50 rounds worth of no actions for an enemy for only 15750 gp (bard version) or 21000 (wiz/sorc version). This trivializes many encounters, and by the time you run out of charges, you will (most likely) have made more than enough gold to get another one and still be making a serious profit.
~P
Terrible Remorse is a 4th level spell and does what?
I remember the effect the Fleshshiver spell had on a 3.5 campaign i GM'ed when the sorcerer took it. When it was introduced (don't remember where) it was 5th level (necromancy) and would stun anything living not immune to necromancy, no save, for one round before a Fort save or take nontrivial damage and suck. No more running away from Ancient dragons...!
When the Spell Compendium came out, it rewrote Fleshshiver to be a 6th level spell, and also allow a save against the stun effect if the target had hit dice greater than caster level.
I breathed a sigh of relief when the player agreed to "upgrade" it to the 6th level, SC version (we had already agreed it would have to be nerfed somehow, but I hadn't been able to come up with a palatable solution yet).
|
How about if after a will save is made, the target is immune to the spell for a day, or cannot be targeted for a time?
That would make the spell similar to some of the hexes.
If a creature fails its save, wouldn't attacking itself be a standard action using up the creature's actions (unless it has multiple base attacks)?
So, Overwhelming Grief is open to more classes and can effect any creature (instead of only living creatures)
Overwhelming Grief can target any creature, but it is still mind-affecting, which eliminates constructs, plants, oozes, undead, and vermin. So, what you are left with is living creatures with an int > 1, same as Terrible Remorse.
How about if after a will save is made, the target is immune to the spell for a day, or cannot be targeted for a time?
That would make the spell similar to some of the hexes.
If a creature fails its save, wouldn't attacking itself be a standard action using up the creature's actions (unless it has multiple base attacks)?
This would make it still very powerful, but negate the ability to lock a creature up by continually casting the spell.
How about if after a will save is made, the target is immune to the spell for a day, or cannot be targeted for a time?
That would make the spell similar to some of the hexes.
If a creature fails its save, wouldn't attacking itself be a standard action using up the creature's actions (unless it has multiple base attacks)?
Actually, this has been FAQed
If you fail your save, you damage yourself and can act normally. Damaging yourself isn't considered an action or attack. If you succeed, you lose your actions for that round, take the AC penalty, and then you are done with the spell.
How about if after a will save is made, the target is immune to the spell for a day, or cannot be targeted for a time?
That would make the spell similar to some of the hexes.
If a creature fails its save, wouldn't attacking itself be a standard action using up the creature's actions (unless it has multiple base attacks)?
Actually, this has been FAQed
If you fail your save, you damage yourself and can act normally. Damaging yourself isn't considered an action or attack. If you succeed, you lose your actions for that round, take the AC penalty, and then you are done with the spell.
Which does nothing to keep you from locking a creature down with repeated castings of the spell. Even a two member party of a fighter and sorcerer could destroy any single foe by using the spell and full attacking while they do nothing.
Conversely, any party member can be taken out of the fight by repeated castings of this spell, whether that is via a sorcerer's spontaneous spells or a wand.
How about if after a will save is made, the target is immune to the spell for a day, or cannot be targeted for a time?
That would make the spell similar to some of the hexes.
If a creature fails its save, wouldn't attacking itself be a standard action using up the creature's actions (unless it has multiple base attacks)?
Actually, this has been FAQed
If you fail your save, you damage yourself and can act normally. Damaging yourself isn't considered an action or attack. If you succeed, you lose your actions for that round, take the AC penalty, and then you are done with the spell.
Which does nothing to keep you from locking a creature down with repeated castings of the spell. Even a two member party of a fighter and sorcerer could destroy any single foe by using the spell and full attacking while they do nothing.
Conversely, any party member can be taken out of the fight by repeated castings of this spell, whether that is via a sorcerer's spontaneous spells or a wand.
Ironically, wands actually do a better job, even though ordinarily they are poor choices for save or sucks. Why? Well, the low save DC makes them extremely deadly (what a weird spell that lower save DCs are more dangerous).
Which does nothing to keep you from locking a creature down with repeated castings of the spell. Even a two member party of a fighter and sorcerer could destroy any single foe by using the spell and full attacking while they do nothing.
Not exactly. SR might negate the spell off the bat. Otherwise, easiest solution is for the target to intentionally fail his save and take 1d8+str for the duration of the spell. At some point, if the target can move and remain beyond close range and wants to end the spell, he can make the save, lose his actions for that turn, and then proceed as normal.
It is a good spell, but it only does 1d8+N/round. BBEGs often have DR, which may negate the damage they cause themselves as well. If you keep your hands free, and don't have Improved Unarmed Strike, I'd imagine you'd be doing non-lethal damage to yourself too. A clever target could mix lethal with non-lethal self-inflicted wounds and heal them both up when given the chance.
If you lost your actions when you failed a save, it would be another story.