Why would anyone use ash storm (UM) over ice storm?
Unless you are fighting a white dragon, the latter is strictly superior.
Why would anyone use ash storm (UM) over ice storm?
Unless you are fighting a white dragon, the latter is strictly superior.
Do you mean sleet storm (rather than ice storm)?
I agree that it seems strange to mostly replicate an existing spell. I guess you might use ash storm if one or more people in your party had an ability to avoid difficult terrain (which wouldn't help with sleet storm). That, plus the white dragon scenario....yeah, that's pretty slim pickings. And maybe the spellcaster might have a "+1 to caster level with fire spells" ability?
|
I don't understand this question. The two spells aren't even remotely similar.
Ash Storm is third level, Ice Storm is fourth level. That right there is a major reason to use Ash Storm over Ice Storm. If you can't cast fourth level spells, then Ash Storm is far more useful.
Ash Storm completely obscures vision (including darkvision) and makes all terrain difficult, Ice Storm only gives a -4 to Perception checks. Ashstorm also covers twice the area (20'r vs 40'r)
Ice Storm deals damage, Ash Storm does not. Thus you can Ash Storm your allies without accidentally killing them.
Very different spells.
ETA: Wait, I think Hogarth is right, I think you mean sleet storm, not ice storm. In that case, as as mechanics go, you'd use Ash Storm if you were fighting monks or some other creature that isn't ever going to fail a DC 10 Acrobatics check, but might be slowed by difficult terrain.
Other than that, I'd think Hama nailed it: Some spellcasters go for thematic spells, and Ash Storm fits a Fire theme better. Like if you're an Ifrit Sorcerer with the Fire bloodline, then Ash Storm is your better bet.
Because they aren't even close to doing the same thing?
Ice storm is 4th level, Ash storm is 3rd level.
Ice storm does damage, Ash storm doesn't.
Ice storm makes it hard to see, Ash storm makes it impossible to see.
I see this as two spells with similar names but completely different uses.
Ice Storm is a combat spell, Ash Storm is an area control spell. Why use Ash Storm over Ice Storm? You don't want to hurt anyone you just want to blind them and slow them down? Sounds like a REALLY good spell for that.
Want to hurt them and slow them down, then use ice storm.
Honestly, just because two spells have similar names does not mean one is supposed to be a mirror image of the other, one ice one fire.
I don't understand this question. The two spells aren't even remotely similar.
Pretty sure he meant "Sleet Storm", not "Ice Storm".
ETA: Wait, I think Hogarth is right, I think you mean sleet storm, not ice storm. In that case, as as mechanics go, you'd use Ash Storm if you were fighting monks or some other creature that isn't ever going to fail a DC 10 Acrobatics check, but might be slowed by difficult terrain.
I think you're misreading things. For sleet storm, with a DC 10 Acrobatics check, they move at half speed, same as with difficult terrain; without the Acrobatics check, they can't move at all.
Ok,
if he's talking about sleet storm, and not ice storm, then yes the two spells are very similar. However, as pointed out, one has fire, the other has cold. Specific bloodlines and elemental wizard schools have different bonuses for different types of spells (fire vs cold), so a fire based spell would be better for a fire elemental or ifriti raced sorcerer. Sleet storm has slightly better benefits, but it's not outrageously so.
|
|
ETA: Wait, I think Hogarth is right, I think you mean sleet storm, not ice storm. In that case, as as mechanics go, you'd use Ash Storm if you were fighting monks or some other creature that isn't ever going to fail a DC 10 Acrobatics check, but might be slowed by difficult terrain.I think you're misreading things. For sleet storm, with a DC 10 Acrobatics check, they move at half speed, same as with difficult terrain; without the Acrobatics check, they can't move at all.
You're right, read it too fast. Don't think I've ever seen anyone use it in a game. 3rd level slots are for lightening bolt and fireball, apparently. That's all my players ever seem to cast.
LOL. Meant sleet storm, which is nearly identical in nature. Silly me.
Ash Storm has the [fire] tag, while Sleet Storm has the [cold] tag. A number of feats/abilities let the player modify spells with the [fire] tag, but not the [cold] tag. Normally, using meta-magic to change the energy type would increase cast times or spell levels required. Think of it as a variant spell.
All the elemental based metamagic feats require that the feats deal damage or have a save as far as I can recall. These two spells have neither, so the metamagic feats you refer too don't even apply (as far as I know).
Even if they did, that doesn't give cause for one to be weaker than the other. If you can't make your acrobatics check on SLEET storm, than you can't move at all. The fact that you might have to make acrobatics checks may open you up to sneak attack (say, by a white dragon with rogue levels, for example :P ).
Ash storm, as written, is weaker with no explained reason for why that is. Why was it even created? I could have simply changed the flavor or sleet storm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ash storm, as written, is weaker with no explained reason for why that is. Why was it even created? I could have simply changed the flavor or sleet storm.
I admit it has the whiff of "filler" to me. Worst case scenario, they could have just written "as sleet storm, except it sends down a rain of ash, not sleet" and saved room.
Similarly with many of the effect words in the Words of Power section. So you end up with an almost-but-not-quite Charm Person, an almost-but-not-quite Hold Person, an almost-but-not-quite Sleet Storm (yet another one!), etc.
First off, I flagged this thread for being in the wrong forum:
´Why use A over B´ is an Advice topic, not a question of how the Rules function: that´s pretty clear here.
To your question...
A: They have different [element] tags. That can be relevant... oh, for stuff like:
Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, or Arcane Sorceror School Power: Fire Elemental School,
Flame Oracles´ Gaze of Flames ability can see through fire, fog, and smoke (but not driving sleet),
Arctic Druids don´t suffer movement or vision penalties from Sleet Storm
(so if you´re fighting one, Sleet Storm ain´t a good idea... like White Dragons and other creatures that exist in the game),
or any other [element] descriptor-related mechanics floating around out there, or will be in the future.
B: You seem to focus on Sleet Storm being more powerful than Ash Storm, because it also forces Acrobatics checks which can prevent movement entirely, and allow Sneak Attacks. Sure. But what do you want to cast when you have a bunch of allies / mooks / summons / mounts with really crappy Acrobatics scores? Right.
C. You only have a pinch of ash on hand, no dust or water.
D. You just want to conjure an ash storm and not a sleet storm.
First off, I flagged this thread for being in the wrong forum:
´Why use A over B´ is an Advice topic, not a question of how the Rules function: that´s pretty clear here.To your question...
A: Magus only has Sleet Storm on their list, not Ash Storm
B: They have different [element] tags. That can be relevant... oh, for stuff like this:
Not to mention Spell Focus: Fire Elemental School,
Flame Oracles´ Gaze of Flames ability can see through fire, fog, and smoke (but not driving sleet),
Arctic Druids´ Icewalking ability let´s them suffer no penalty to speed or on Acrobatics, Climb, or Stealth checks in snowy or icy terrain or weather conditions,
and their Snowcaster ability lets them see normally in ice storm, sleet storm, or similar natural snowstorms. (They can also prepare Ash Storm to use Cold, in the case they don´t want to force Acrobatics checks on others but still want to see thru it themselves.)C: You seem to focus on Sleet Storm being more powerful than Ash Storm, because it also forces Acrobatics checks which can prevent movement entirely, and allow Sneak Attacks. Sure. But what do you want to cast when you have a bunch of allies / mooks / summons with really crappy Acrobatics scores? Oh.
Rime-Blooded would not affect these spells since they don't have targets. Or saves, so no elemental focus.
I guess you can read creatures in Area of Effect as not being target´s of your spell,
if you think that term is uniquely tied to spell that you individually target (or that specify creatures in their area, ala Sleep).
I deleted that section since I realized it was beyond the thread topic, i.e. not pro-Ash vs. Sleet. :-)
I guess you can read creatures in Area of Effect as not being target´s of your spell,
if you think that term is uniquely tied to spell that you individually target (or that specify creatures in their area, ala Sleep).I deleted that section since I realized it was beyond the thread topic, i.e. not pro-Ash vs. Sleet. :-)
It's not. Target has a specific meaning when it comes to spells. If a spell doesn't have a Target: line, then it doesn't have a target. So by "I guess you can read" you mean "the rules very specifically stipulate" then sure.
First off, I flagged this thread for being in the wrong forum:
´Why use A over B´ is an Advice topic, not a question of how the Rules function: that´s pretty clear here.
How the...rules...function...?
I posted this in general discussion, not the rules forum, so I'm afraid I'm not sure what you are talking about. The question of "why" is being discussed as it should be.
I'm not asking for rules or for advice. I'm asking why ash storm is weaker. It's in the right place.
Here's one combo: Ash Storm + Glorious Heat feat (Faiths of purity) for a druid. The druid probably didn't pick up Glorious Heat just to use it with Ash Storm, but it is a nice bonus to throw in.
As I said, still not a good reason for ash storm being weaker.
What does glorious heat do?
Sorry I misunderstood...
Your first post just said ´Why use Ash vs. Ice´ which seemed like soliciting advice to me... (which I gave, and the thread seemed focused on)
Your meta-question of why one is weaker than the other wasn´t actually stated, which is fine. :-)
Accepting that Ash does ´less stuff´ than Ice (disregarding why specific casters would find it more useful, or in specific situations, etc) it´s pretty much a matter of there are only 9 Spell Levels. Probably Paizo didn´t think it was a 2nd level spell, given all the other specs equaled Ice Storm. Not every spell of a given level is equally powerful. What are you gonna do? I´m glad they published Ash Storm, it´s an evocative and useful spell.
Glorious Heat gives free healing... There was some forum traffic about it a while ago, it looks like it will be Errata´d to tone down the benefit based on Spell Level, but it would still provide some benefit for any [fire] spell cast.
|
Glorious Heat
When you cast divine fire spells, their heat empowers
nearby allies.
Prerequisites: ability to cast divine spells, caster level 5th.
Benefit: When you cast a divine spell with the fire
descriptor, choose a single ally within 30 feet that you
can see. That ally heals half your level in hit points, and
gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls until the end of
its next turn.
So, only Druids.
Ash Storm
School conjuration (creation) [fire]; Level druid 3, sorcerer/ wizard 3, witch 3
:-)
:-)Ash Storm
School conjuration (creation) [fire]; Level druid 3, sorcerer/ wizard 3, witch 3
Druids can cast sleet storm.
The "why", if I had to guess, is a matter of lots of freelance writers, lots of fingers in the Pathfinder pie, and a failure along the line somewhere of making sure things aren't "reskins" or already close to previously published material. It's the same reason we've seen two feats that do nearly the exact same thing... Great minds think alike?
One of my experiences at PaizoCon to a certain ability was along the lines of: "It does what? Wow, I wrote some stuff for that book, too. I guess I should read it some time!"
The two spells are near identical. So much so that I don't think someone accidentally recreated it.
Same level, same class access, same range, same saves and spell resistance (or lack there of), nearly same effect and school. Too many coincidences to be a coincidence if you ask me.
I think it WAS copy and pasted and, for some reason, edited to be slightly weaker.
I dont have the spell infront of me though potentially the halving of movement is the result of poor visibility not dificult terrain in sleet storm. Ash storm should technically suffer the effect of poor visibility on movement and the effects of difficult terrain both, though I doubt that was the intention.
A secondary effect to the spell more appropriate to the thematic nature of the spell making it different from sleet storm would have been appropriate, but I am glad it is weaker form than sleet storm rather than stronger.
There are slight differences.
Ash Storm affects an area such that movement costs 4 squares per 5 feet moved (difficult terrain x2, poor visibility x2).
Sleet Storm affects an area such that movement costs 2 squares per 5 feet moved (poor visibility x2), and slows movement speeds to half, with a successful Acrobatics check.
Doubled movement terrain costs, and reduced movement speed are not the same thing (though they often resolve similarly).
A secondary effect to the spell more appropriate to the thematic nature of the spell making it different from sleet storm would have been appropriate[..]
I think that's the crux of the issue. Is having two spells that are almost-but-not-quite the same really the best use of space? As I noted above, it's particularly egregious in the Words of Power section of the book.
I think just changing the special effects of a spell offers the second least amount of value added possible (the least value added is to offer he same spell, but under a different name).
There are GMs that don't allow content in the game unless it's in a published book.
Pathfinder Society also operates this way. You can't have a PFS wizard who has "this list of fire spells, but they do cold damage" in his spellbook.
And they do have DIFFERENT effects. Do you have some form of metric to define the "minimum difference" you need for spells? Do you have a problem with the spell itself?
I guess I do. Personally, I ask myself: "Would I prefer spell X if it was either (a) more different from spell Y or (b) exactly the same as spell Y?" If the answer is "yes and yes", then it's going to seem like kind of a flop to me.
A friend took ahs storm because she is gonna play a tiefling witch specilized in vengeance, thematically it fits more.
There are GMs that don't allow content in the game unless it's in a published book.
Pathfinder Society also operates this way. You can't have a PFS wizard who has "this list of fire spells, but they do cold damage" in his spellbook.
Wouldn't an entry that says "when learning sleet storm (or "insert element spell here") pick an element, this spell has that element descriptor, this decision cannot be changed" Be a much better use of space? (one of the biggest things I see you guys worry about)
You have to admit though, 'Ash Storm' sounds much nicer than 'Sleet Storm with the fire descriptor', I also do not like this method for the silly things it creates, acrobatics checks for slippery ice are cool, but when you take away the ice and change it to fire it makes alot less sense.
Something that makes it a little different could be added though, if there was something replacing that acrobatics check it would have been just fine, 1d4 fire damage, a save or be sickened for 1 round or maybe a slightly bigger AoE.
|
|
In addition to the reasons Sean mentioned (or perhaps underlying the reasons Sean listed) is the simple fact that "palette-swapping" is not value neutral.
Fireball is a pretty decent spell. Sonicball is downright devastating. Fire resistance and immunity are extremely common, sonic immunity is fairly rare. So being able to switch out [fire] for [sonic], [electricity] or [acid] without increasing spell level actually does have a meaningful game effect.
|
|
I think just changing the special effects of a spell offers the second least amount of value added possible (the least value added is to offer he same spell, but under a different name).There are GMs that don't allow content in the game unless it's in a published book.
Pathfinder Society also operates this way. You can't have a PFS wizard who has "this list of fire spells, but they do cold damage" in his spellbook.
Does this mean we will probably see good-aligned ki powers and good-flavored feats for monks in response to the evil ones? :)
Wouldn't an entry that says "when learning sleet storm (or "insert element spell here") pick an element, this spell has that element descriptor, this decision cannot be changed" Be a much better use of space? (one of the biggest things I see you guys worry about)
There are GMs that don't allow content in the game unless it's in a published book.
Pathfinder Society also operates this way. You can't have a PFS wizard who has "this list of fire spells, but they do cold damage" in his spellbook.
Or simply a metamagic feat that changes a spell of one energy type into a spell of a different energy type.
In addition to the reasons Sean mentioned (or perhaps underlying the reasons Sean listed) is the simple fact that "palette-swapping" is not value neutral.
Fireball is a pretty decent spell. Sonicball is downright devastating. Fire resistance and immunity are extremely common, sonic immunity is fairly rare. So being able to switch out [fire] for [sonic], [electricity] or [acid] without increasing spell level actually does have a meaningful game effect.
In my own games, I allow people to do the switching out of elements when they learn a spell. However, when it comes to sonic, I do the same thing that the spells in the book do, reduce the damage die.
So, Sonic Blast (fireball -> sonic) does 1d4 per caster level, max damage 10d4. Frost Bomb (fireball -> cold) does 1d6 per caster level, and manifests as a ball of ice that explodes into shards of ice. Acidic Mist (Fireball -> acid) does 1d6 per caster level, and manifests as a big ball of acidic mist. Shock Sphere (fireball -> electricity) does 1d6 per caster level and manifests as a bit of ball lightning that sends out tendrils of lightning all over the area of effect (kind of like a plasma globe, if you've ever seen one of those).
Never found it to be game breaking, and gives casters the ability to do themed builds.
Wouldn't an entry that says "when learning sleet storm (or "insert element spell here") pick an element, this spell has that element descriptor, this decision cannot be changed" Be a much better use of space? (one of the biggest things I see you guys worry about)
The place for that would have been the Core Rulebook, which would mean we'd never have to print alternate-energy versions of existing spells. Perhaps an [energy-variable] descriptor, and the explanation of that descriptor in the Magic chapter would be something like this:
Then we could have one or two utility damage spells in the Core Rulebook at each spell level with this descriptor (say, a single-target spell and an area spell), and we'd never again have to create a "generic energy damage" spell--though you'd still have room to create spells that rely on a specific energy type for a thematic or secondary effect (such as a sonic spell that deafens targets, a fire spell that catches things on fire, and so on) or tweaks based on how "easy" the game considers each energy (fire is easiest and most common at low levels, and so on). This would require a hard look at some classic spells that would be made pointless by this change (we probably wouldn't need cone of cold if we had an energy-variable area spell at level 5).
But it's nearly 2 years after the release of the Core Rulebook, and that horse has run away, and closing the barn door now isn't going to do any good--these specific spells are in the game, and adding energy-variable options to existing spells would make a lot of existing spells obsolete. Which would suck.
And while they could consider making such a ruling for PFS, the PFS rules document is not the place to make sweeping changes that affect the PFRPG--in other words, I'd rather not have PFS making rules that makes PFS characters incompatible (or just... weird) with the main PFRPG. It's one thing to say "you don't get item creation feats in PFS," it's another thing entirely to say "because of this energy-swapping, many of the spells in the Core Rulebook are redundant or inferior."
Wouldn't an entry that says "when learning sleet storm (or "insert element spell here") pick an element, this spell has that element descriptor, this decision cannot be changed" Be a much better use of space? (one of the biggest things I see you guys worry about)The place for that would have been the Core Rulebook, which would mean we'd never have to print alternate-energy versions of existing spells. Perhaps an [energy-variable] descriptor, and the explanation of that descriptor in the Magic chapter would be something like this:
I would say that it was either the core book, or an optional rule in UM. However, since UM is already out, it is indeed a horse that has already left the barn now. :)
It is, however, a very fine house rule (see above).