Yes there is an errata for the spell ->Terrible Remorse
No. The spell is a bit unclear here. When you are targeted by terrible remorse you do not make a saving throw until your turn. On your turn, you must make a Will saving throw. If you make the saving throw, you are frozen with sorrow and can take no actions, but this causes the spell to end. If you fail the saving throw, you deal damage to yourself, but can otherwise act normally.
Update: Page 243, in the description of the terrible remorse spell, change the final sentence to read as follows.
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.
—Jason Bulmahn, Wednesday
Of course, this means it is still a ridiculously powerful spell!
Not blatantly overpowered like it seemed, but still a no-brainer to take since at WORST it makes a target unable to act for one round.
2 of the 3 characters in my group are spontaneous casters that know this spell (Inquisitor and Oracle) and it is devastating.
Of course, this means it is still a ridiculously powerful spell!
Not blatantly overpowered like it seemed, but still a no-brainer to take since at WORST it makes a target unable to act for one round.
2 of the 3 characters in my group are spontaneous casters that know this spell (Inquisitor and Oracle) and it is devastating.
Myself, I don't consider the spell fixed.
I really don't understand what's wrong with saving throws. Increased DCs, rerolls, and no save effects. Why don't just remove them all?
Of course, this means it is still a ridiculously powerful spell!
Not blatantly overpowered like it seemed, but still a no-brainer to take since at WORST it makes a target unable to act for one round.
2 of the 3 characters in my group are spontaneous casters that know this spell (Inquisitor and Oracle) and it is devastating.
Ironically, it now at best makes them unable to act for a round, as they can now act normally if they fail the save, taking minor damage (considering its a level 4 spell). So the worst thing that can happen is making the save.
Ironically, it now at best makes them unable to act for a round, as they can now act normally if they fail the save, taking minor damage (considering its a level 4 spell). So the worst thing that can happen is making the save.Of course, this means it is still a ridiculously powerful spell!
Not blatantly overpowered like it seemed, but still a no-brainer to take since at WORST it makes a target unable to act for one round.
2 of the 3 characters in my group are spontaneous casters that know this spell (Inquisitor and Oracle) and it is devastating.
So everybody will fail willingly the save and the spell is useless? at least, those able of recognizing it?
and those unable are more likely of having low will...
Ironically, it now at best makes them unable to act for a round, as they can now act normally if they fail the save, taking minor damage (considering its a level 4 spell). So the worst thing that can happen is making the save.Of course, this means it is still a ridiculously powerful spell!
Not blatantly overpowered like it seemed, but still a no-brainer to take since at WORST it makes a target unable to act for one round.
2 of the 3 characters in my group are spontaneous casters that know this spell (Inquisitor and Oracle) and it is devastating.
So everybody will fail willingly the save and the spell is useless? at least, those able of recognizing it?
and those unable are more likely of having low will...
I mean, it's not useless. It's just a Damage Over Time spell now instead of a disabler. Compared to, say, Extended Empowered Acid Arrow, which is one level higher, you're looking at a longer duration from Terrible Remorse, with equal damage per round if the target has 16 Strength. Granted Terrible Remorse is Mind-Affecting and SR: Yes, and it does physical damage. Acid Arrow, however, can miss the attack roll and does acid. Also, it's likely that the damage from Terrible Remorse does not interrupt spellcasting, whereas Acid Arrow does. It's probably balanced, though a bit weak, as a DoT spell, then, based on those numbers, although DoT is not always as useful if the fight is over before the duration expires.
|
After using the spell in its re-vamped form, I can tell you it is still overpowered. You pretty much negate most BBEGs (unless they aren't living creatures) for a round. This means your fighters have time to move in to attack, your spellcasters can get off ridiculous spells, and the -2 to AC also applies to a -2 to their CMD, so they are easier to grapple.
Scrolls for this spell cost 700 gp a pop. You could load yourself up with this and just go to town on someone. Even if they make their save, they are still not going to do anything for a round, and then you could cast it again and they are now either grappled or taking full-round attacks from your fighter types. Or some wizard summoned a beastly creature and it is now going to town on it. How do I know this will work? I did it in one combat encounter. All it took was 1400 gp worth of scrolls and the bad guy was surrounded and getting attacked.
I think the spell needs to be re-worded again to say that if you make the initial save, you are unaffected. The "do nothing" round only happens when you fail your initial save but then make another save to end hitting yourself. From a design standpoint, the only spell I can think that immobilizes you for at least a round is Suffocation, and that's a 5th level spell - and it works on about the same limited number of creatures as Terrible Remorse.
I can definitely see why my PFS GM is going to ban it from his home games NOT associated with PFS or just re-write it to not work if you save initially. It's way too powerful for a 4th level spell.
After using the spell in its re-vamped form, I can tell you it is still overpowered. You pretty much negate most BBEGs (unless they aren't living creatures) for a round. This means your fighters have time to move in to attack, your spellcasters can get off ridiculous spells, and the -2 to AC also applies to a -2 to their CMD, so they are easier to grapple.
Scrolls for this spell cost 700 gp a pop. You could load yourself up with this and just go to town on someone. Even if they make their save, they are still not going to do anything for a round, and then you could cast it again and they are now either grappled or taking full-round attacks from your fighter types. Or some wizard summoned a beastly creature and it is now going to town on it. How do I know this will work? I did it in one combat encounter. All it took was 1400 gp worth of scrolls and the bad guy was surrounded and getting attacked.
I think the spell needs to be re-worded again to say that if you make the initial save, you are unaffected. The "do nothing" round only happens when you fail your initial save but then make another save to end hitting yourself. From a design standpoint, the only spell I can think that immobilizes you for at least a round is Suffocation, and that's a 5th level spell - and it works on about the same limited number of creatures as Terrible Remorse.
I can definitely see why my PFS GM is going to ban it from his home games NOT associated with PFS or just re-write it to not work if you save initially. It's way too powerful for a 4th level spell.
I think Suffocation staggers for a round on a success, actually.
Also, I think you were playing with re-vamp #1. With re-vamp #2, it's possible not to lose an action, though paradoxically only if you fail the save every time.
If they don't want to put in that initial save (as I, Jason Nelson, and others had suggested in a thread I started the day I got the .pdf for UM), I do have a new idea--basically what if the spell reversed itself from the current incarnation to read:
The target is filled with thoughts of self-loathing. Each round, the target must make a Will save. Failure overwhelms her mind with remorse, leaving her cowering and unable to act that round, as she contemplates dark and suicidal thoughts. Success means that she attacks herself as a free action, dealing 1d8 + Strength damage to herself and breaking free from her terrible fascination, ending the effects of the spell.
|
|
I think Suffocation staggers for a round on a success, actually.
Also, I think you were playing with re-vamp #1. With re-vamp #2, it's possible not to lose an action, though paradoxically only if you fail the save every time.
If they don't want to put in that initial save (as I, Jason Nelson, and others had suggested in a thread I started the day I got the .pdf for UM), I do have a new idea--basically what if...
I did not realize if you failed you can hit yourself but just act normally. That means everything from now on should just willingly fail their save because it's better to take damage than to sit there sad for a round. I'm sure my GM will be happy to hear about this.
I did not realize if you failed you can hit yourself but just act normally. That means everything from now on should just willingly fail their save because it's better to take damage than to sit there sad for a round. I'm sure my GM will be happy to hear about this.I think Suffocation staggers for a round on a success, actually.
Also, I think you were playing with re-vamp #1. With re-vamp #2, it's possible not to lose an action, though paradoxically only if you fail the save every time.
If they don't want to put in that initial save (as I, Jason Nelson, and others had suggested in a thread I started the day I got the .pdf for UM), I do have a new idea--basically what if...
Well, if they make their Spellcraft check at least, otherwise they wouldn't know to voluntarily fail. It's still pretty funky that a spell would exist that makes you want to fail the save, but yeah there you go--that second clarification is from a FAQ just a few days ago.
A creature that doesn't know what spell is being cast upon it (such as a 15th level barbarian with no ranks in Spellcraft) is not going to willingly fail a saving throw. The spell is just broken and should be removed from PFS like it has been removed from all my home games.
I agree--you can see one new idea I had for a change just above, and even here for a preliminary fix in the first thread on this back in May, when I was worried for PFS:
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.
I agree that it really shouldn't take away a turn on a successful save, though I do think there's still a way to salvage it. What do you think of my idea just a bit upthread here? It does a little something even on a successful save, but they don't lose a turn unless they fail.
|
It does a little something even on a successful save, but they don't lose a turn unless they fail.
But that is the crux of the problem. The difference between this spell and most other spells, is if the enemy makes his save against most spells, he is unaffected, whereas if he makes his save vs. Terrible Remorse, REALLY bad things still happen. This shouldn't happen. It is fatally flawed because it is a no-lose situation for the caster and a no-win situation for the target.
Even with spell resistance it makes it way to easy to handle most good choices for even endgame bosses with a 4th level spell.(think i have that right)
With V1 Remorse, I could spam it round after round as a Bard and shut down the BBEG.
With V2 Remorse, if the enemy knows what I'm casting (or intelligent enemies realize after the first hits them), they will willingly fail subsequent saves so all it does is weak damage, turning the spell into a selection I would not make.
The way I think I'd like to see it is the following:
*
On a success, the target is unaffected and the spell ends.
On a failure, the target must deal damage to itself. While the target may choose the least damaging attack available to it (such as casting a 0-level spell or punching itself), it cannot otherwise hold back to reduce the attack's damage.
*
This seems to be much better to me. It has logical Succeed/Fail effects that cannot be gamed by savvy antagonists, and it remains useful while not being overpowering -- if a Fighter is next to an enemy he has to punch himself once in his Full Attack routine, but has the other attacks available. If he's not adjacent to an enemy, he has to make the Standard attack on himself, but can still maneuver around. And, if a character can damage itself with a free action such as a Quickened spell, good on it for making effective choices.
I don't like the spell because I can see it locking someone down, and many GM's like using the one superboss against the PC's. It should not be better to fail a save than it is to make the save.
I would rather have it so that if you fail you feel so bad you hit yourself once as a full round action, even making it automatic max damage would be better than what it is now. If you make the save you should be unaffected.
where are the rules that say a character can willingly fail a non harmless saving throw?
In the magic section. You can always fail a savings throw.
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a
character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
|
|
*
On a success, the target is unaffected and the spell ends.On a failure, the target must deal damage to itself. While the target may choose the least damaging attack available to it (such as casting a 0-level spell or punching itself), it cannot otherwise hold back to reduce the attack's damage.
*
Seems very weak for a 4th-level spell.
I prefer Rogue Eidolon's version of reversing the effects of save success/failure, though that makes it barely better than hold person.
This spell is definitely a spell sitting in a big pool of abuseable cheese. I haven't had a player make a wand to spam it with yet. Most likely that will never happen. But I hate that there is a spell that makes it possible and where voluntarily missing the save is preferable.
Conceptually I like the spell. Mechancially I hate it.
I prefer Rogue Eidolon's version of reversing the effects of save success/failure, though that makes it barely better than hold person.*
On a success, the target is unaffected and the spell ends.On a failure, the target must deal damage to itself. While the target may choose the least damaging attack available to it (such as casting a 0-level spell or punching itself), it cannot otherwise hold back to reduce the attack's damage.
*
Except Hold Person can only affect Humanoids...
|
|
[I prefer Rogue Eidolon's version of reversing the effects of save success/failure, though that makes it barely better than hold person.Except Hold Person can only affect Humanoids...
Ah... good point.
So a more appropriate comparison would be hold monster, a 5th-level spell. Essentially, that would make Rogue Eidolon's variation of terrible remorse better than a higher level spell, except for range.Mind changed.
[I prefer Rogue Eidolon's version of reversing the effects of save success/failure, though that makes it barely better than hold person.Except Hold Person can only affect Humanoids...Ah... good point.
So a more appropriate comparison would be hold monster, a 5th-level spell. Essentially, that would make Rogue Eidolon's variation of terrible remorse better than a higher level spell, except for range.
Mind changed.
Except they aren't helpless, they just lose their actiion. Hold Monster sets up a coup de grace, this wouldn't.
Also attempting a new saving throw to free from Hold Person/Monster obliges the subject to use a full-round action, while Rogue Eidolon's Terrible Remorse gives the subject a free possibility to end the effect, so you can still act after that.
|
With V1 Remorse, I could spam it round after round as a Bard and shut down the BBEG.
With V2 Remorse, if the enemy knows what I'm casting (or intelligent enemies realize after the first hits them), they will willingly fail subsequent saves so all it does is weak damage, turning the spell into a selection I would not make.
AFAIK the damage for multiple failed saves pile up. So we have a guy that after the first failed saves is damaging himself for 1d8+str, after the second for 2d8+2*str and so on.
Against monsters with high AC or special defences it can be useful.A mind numbing question: what will it do against a incorporeal target? (for example a gaseous creature)