"maximum damage depends on the level of the spell and whether the spell is arcane or divine. This is because arcane magic is deliberately designed to be better at dealing damage to balance the fact that divine magic is better at healing."
Torger
Is that why Flame Strike is better than every arcane damaging spell of same level and lower ?
Nobody reads those instructions, not even the people that write em. :)
*shrug* that may well be true. I still think it bears mentioning that the instructions then the contradiction are within a handfull of pages of one another and I still find it funny.
Torger
P.S. If I remember correctly Flame Strike specificaly is a legacy thing from the pre 3rd edition days. Not sayin that makes it right. Just sayin it is.
Maybe it's a swift action because the area on it, like the area on cone of cold, is so atrocious. I've NEVER seen cold of cold used in play. My party received staff of frost and promptly sold it for exactly that reason. With that in mind I'm not terribly shaken up about this. You are looking at a very situational spell that basically requires you be in front of your fighters with the bad guys within charging distance of you to affect them.
Which makes it a great spell for a front line divine caster to snap off. I also have to wonder if an extra 12d6 at 12th level is going to kill anything that isn't about to die anyway.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Maybe it's a swift action because the area on it, like the area on cone of cold, is so atrocious. I've NEVER seen cold of cold used in play. My party received staff of frost and promptly sold it for exactly that reason. With that in mind I'm not terribly shaken up about this. You are looking at a very situational spell that basically requires you be in front of your fighters with the bad guys within charging distance of you to affect them.Which makes it a great spell for a front line divine caster to snap off. I also have to wonder if an extra 12d6 at 12th level is going to kill anything that isn't about to die anyway.
It certainly helps to soften up large groups of mooks, which the APs love so much to throw at the party.
Soften up a large group sees ok for a level six spell.
|
Did I read that right that this is also a cleric spell???
sigh... unbelievable; I know I was taking a pass on the book already, but now I will also take a pass on the PDF, as I am not intending to use that book. Too many additional broken options for players, breaking the game in a lot of weird ways...
Folks, you need to calm down. I said I'm looking into this. The spell is clearly too good as written, I'm just trying to track down where the problem happened. Most of the qinggong monk abilities were written up in a different format and got turned into spells to standardize them, and this looks like a legacy of that conversion. Some aspect didn't get fixed when it was changed from a monk power to a spell. Whether it's the level, or the casting time, or the damage, or the area, I don't know at the moment because we've been busy getting our Gen Con products out the door and because I'm finishing up the Beginner Box. There's something wrong with this spell, and it'll get fixed, and it's not a symptom of a new design direction for the game
When you said before you were "looking into it", I had every confidence it would be resolved eventually, Sean. But thanks for the follow up post.
*Reminds himself to leave out the errated page for this spell later on on when giving his GM the updated errata for UM* :D
There's something wrong with this spell, and it'll get fixed, and it's not a symptom of a new design direction for the game
Good to hear (:
Folks, you need to calm down. I said I'm looking into this. The spell is clearly too good as written, I'm just trying to track down where the problem happened. Most of the qinggong monk abilities were written up in a different format and got turned into spells to standardize them, and this looks like a legacy of that conversion. Some aspect didn't get fixed when it was changed from a monk power to a spell. Whether it's the level, or the casting time, or the damage, or the area, I don't know at the moment because we've been busy getting our Gen Con products out the door and because I'm finishing up the Beginner Box. There's something wrong with this spell, and it'll get fixed, and it's not a symptom of a new design direction for the game
I more or less considered the matter closed untill you responded after your initial post. But thank you for the follow up.
Folks, you need to calm down. I said I'm looking into this. The spell is clearly too good as written, I'm just trying to track down where the problem happened. Most of the qinggong monk abilities were written up in a different format and got turned into spells to standardize them, and this looks like a legacy of that conversion. Some aspect didn't get fixed when it was changed from a monk power to a spell. Whether it's the level, or the casting time, or the damage, or the area, I don't know at the moment because we've been busy getting our Gen Con products out the door and because I'm finishing up the Beginner Box. There's something wrong with this spell, and it'll get fixed, and it's not a symptom of a new design direction for the game
Mercí for looking at it. I guess that means "you shouldn't allow it as written in your campaign". :p
Maybe it's a swift action because the area on it, like the area on cone of cold, is so atrocious. I've NEVER seen cold of cold used in play. My party received staff of frost and promptly sold it for exactly that reason. With that in mind I'm not terribly shaken up about this. You are looking at a very situational spell that basically requires you be in front of your fighters with the bad guys within charging distance of you to affect them.
Not if your wizard has the Selective Spell feat...
Maybe it's a swift action because the area on it, like the area on cone of cold, is so atrocious. I've NEVER seen cold of cold used in play. My party received staff of frost and promptly sold it for exactly that reason. With that in mind I'm not terribly shaken up about this. You are looking at a very situational spell that basically requires you be in front of your fighters with the bad guys within charging distance of you to affect them.Not if your wizard has the Selective Spell feat...
Widen spell works pretty nicely with cone of cold, in my experience.
I'd agree that Pathfinder is more balanced, unless you bring words of power into the system.
Now I do know that Jason Bulmahn himself acknowledged that it's an experimental system and should be used judiciously. WITH THIS CAVEAT IN MIND, however, I'd say that words of power as a system is *more* broken than some of the things wotc came up with.
Yeah this spell seems messed up. It directly contradicts the book in question in the section about designing new spells.
I think it would have been an ok spell if dmg was 1d6/2 levels rather than 1d6/level.
Anyway, I'm glad Sean is looking into it.
Will you be so kind to explain how evocation damaging spells don't suck, especially compared to other schools of magic and damage output of martial classes?evocation basically sucks anywayI want everyone to keep thinking this. And it makes my job as a GM so much easier.
Damage spells at least do something, whereas Save or Die spells often do nothing if you save. And the counters to Save or Die spells often make you immune or for practical purposes immune, whereas it is more difficult to counter damage spells because there are so many different options for doing damage.
But I do agree with the second part. Melee characters do insane damage. The melees in my group average 150 to 200 pts a round. If they crit, even more. Nothing can resist damage. They can chew through Iron Golems in a single round. Nothing resists physical damage, especially once they obtain a high bonus weapon.
They often do lack versatility. A fighter or even paladin that isn't an archer by himself often has no chance against an arcane caster. There is a tradeoff.
Yeah this spell seems messed up. It directly contradicts the book in question in the section about designing new spells.
I think it would have been an ok spell if dmg was 1d6/2 levels rather than 1d6/level.
Anyway, I'm glad Sean is looking into it.
I disagree somewhat, if only because in the spell creation section when they were talking about different spells they did comment that cone of cold was actually fairly weak for the level it was at. Not saying that this spell might not be a bit op, just saying that part of it might be more cone of cold not quite being up to snuff.
I disagree somewhat, if only because in the spell creation section when they were talking about different spells they did comment that cone of cold was actually fairly weak for the level it was at. Not saying that this spell might not be a bit op, just saying that part of it might be more cone of cold not quite being up to snuff.Yeah this spell seems messed up. It directly contradicts the book in question in the section about designing new spells.
I think it would have been an ok spell if dmg was 1d6/2 levels rather than 1d6/level.
Anyway, I'm glad Sean is looking into it.
The following was what I was referring to:
"Avoid the temptation to invent spells with a casting time of “1 move action,” “1 swift action,” or “1 immediate action,” as that’s just a cheesy way for spellcasters to be able to cast two spells in 1 round,
and there’s already a mechanism for that: the Quicken Spell feat." (pag 132 under casting time).
While it doesn't say you can't have spells with such casting times (it says you should avoid it), it seems weird to find a spell in the same book that is essentially a quickened cone of cold with just a +1 level adjustment (in the same section of the book it says that even if you design a spell to be similar to a quickened spell, including the +4 level adj, it is unfair to casters who actually learn the quicken spell feat.)
Nope. Out of an airlock.
Kind of like a nasty, snapping alien baby. . . does that mean I get thrown out with the bathwater? ):
Well played, sir, well payed.
And then afterwards, take and nuke the planet from orbit - it is the only way to be sure. :^)
(I know, not the exact quote from Aliens)
|
Damage spells at least do something, whereas Save or Die spells often do nothing if you save.
More and more, I'm liking the Mutants & Masterminds setup where any 'save or lose' effect requires a certain level of success to reach the 'lose' part, but has a lesser effect for a lesser success (so a paralysis attack might have slow as a lesser effect, sort of like how some fear effects leave you shaken even if they don't succeed in panicking you).
Damage spells at least do something, whereas Save or Die spells often do nothing if you save.More and more, I'm liking the Mutants & Masterminds setup where any 'save or lose' effect requires a certain level of success to reach the 'lose' part, but has a lesser effect for a lesser success (so a paralysis attack might have slow as a lesser effect, sort of like how some fear effects leave you shaken even if they don't succeed in panicking you).
I wouldn't mind seeing spell and magic design evolve in this direction. Save or Lose spells are pretty rough. But it also sucks when the creature saves and nothing happens. Feels like you wasted a round. But certain effects like staggered or nauseated on a success rather than dead are still a guaranteed win for whoever casts them.
I wish the spell designers would remember certain things as well. They gave the samurai the ability to overcome nausea and gave the cleanse spell the ability to clear nausea, you'll never be able to use them if your nauseated because you can only take move actions. That seems really dumb design. Why give a class the ability to remove a condition if they'll never actually be able to remove it?