And you're mad at me because?So I actually think that by RAW you can totally jump during a charge, and also by RAW you can totally jump at anytime.
She is just using the most literal interpretation of the rules. :)
By Andy's argument, we can use Jump to evade attacks. Since it is no action, and is applied during an unspecific action or reaction, if someone decides to charge me, I'll just make a jump check and leap 20 ft away as a nonspecific reaction. Hell, I'll just make a jump check every time I take an action, and every time someone else takes an action. I speak (free action) so I jump 20-30 feet. I take a 5ft. step and jump another 20-30 feet. I will attack with my bow, and jump another 20-30 feet. My friend the mage speaks, so I'll jump 20-30 feet. He begins casting a spell, so I'll jump 20-30 ft, and then he moves 30 ft, so I'll jump 20-30 ft. When our enemy begins their turn, they will draw a weapon, and I will jump 20-30 ft...
I'm aware you're being facetious :)
The real problem is that when mashed up bunches of skills a la 4e, they left out some of the verbiage that was crucial.
Under the old Jump skill, all Jump checks were part of a move action. The new Acrobatics skill doesn't say this. In the developers minds, I'm sure it was still "there" because it was obvious, but now that we're attempting to use the RAW only as RAW and not RAI, the fact that Acrobatics doesn't explicitly state "as part of a move action" is fatal ... unless whoever is interpreting it interprets jumps as movement.
Personally, I'm okay with it being in a FAQ somewhere without official errata, because it makes sense. Yes, I'll grant entirely that the rules don't say so, but A) they did under 3.5e, B) the rules do say that it's part of another action (and really, it should be an action that makes sense, not casting a spell or speaking as a free action).
In any case, as has been elaborated on many times before, the Pathfinder rules are not a computer program being evaluated by robots; they're intended to be interpreted in a way that makes sense. Jumping thousands of feet per round as free actions does not make sense :)
Edit: None of this, of course, can stop anyone from doing what they like, except in my game, where I get to stop silliness such as that.
By Andy's argument, we can use Jump to evade attacks. Since it is no action, and is applied during an unspecific action or reaction, if someone decides to charge me, I'll just make a jump check and leap 20 ft away as a nonspecific reaction. Hell, I'll just make a jump check every time I take an action, and every time someone else takes an action. I speak (free action) so I jump 20-30 feet. I take a 5ft. step and jump another 20-30 feet. I will attack with my bow, and jump another 20-30 feet. My friend the mage speaks, so I'll jump 20-30 feet. He begins casting a spell, so I'll jump 20-30 ft, and then he moves 30 ft, so I'll jump 20-30 ft. When our enemy begins their turn, they will draw a weapon, and I will jump 20-30 ft...I'm aware you're being facetious :)
The real problem is that when mashed up bunches of skills a la 4e, they left out some of the verbiage that was crucial.
Under the old Jump skill, all Jump checks were part of a move action. The new Acrobatics skill doesn't say this. In the developers minds, I'm sure it was still "there" because it was obvious, but now that we're attempting to use the RAW only as RAW and not RAI, the fact that Acrobatics doesn't explicitly state "as part of a move action" is fatal ... unless whoever is interpreting it interprets jumps as movement.
Personally, I'm okay with it being in a FAQ somewhere without official errata, because it makes sense. Yes, I'll grant entirely that the rules don't say so, but A] they did under 3.5e, B the rules do say that it's part of another action (and really, it should be an action that makes sense, not casting a spell or speaking as a free action).
In any case, as has been elaborated on many times before, the Pathfinder rules are not a computer program being evaluated by robots; they're intended to be interpreted in a way that makes sense. Jumping thousands of feet per round as free actions does not make sense :)
Hey, what's good for the goose. We got a class feature that specifically allows you to use acrobatics to avoid obstacles during a charge, and Andy is talking about how we don't need that feature because we can just jump over them as part of another unrelated action. So then the next logical step is we don't actually need charge or even pounce, because we can just jump as part of another action, or in reaction to something happening.
Yes, it's silly. But as long as Andy is arguing RAW, let's argue us some RAW. Hell, it even pertains to the current discussion by leaps and bounds (pun-intended) because anything that's an AoE can just be lept out of as a reaction, or non-action, etc. Someone tries to hit you with a ray? Jump behind a tree. Someone tries to use Reverse Gravity? Gonzors. Someone drops a fireball? I'm a mile away from ground-zero.
Ergo, buffs are the only thing that matter! Haste for all! Jump farther, jump stronger, and full-attack as you go! Whee!
Take your debate to another thread. I'll not have you anti-blasters kill my thread via filibustering.
You never showed this or at least I haven't read it.
Dragon example, you responded to the post. Dragon was on your list of "low reflex type saves with minimal acid resistance", and was a "situation where that type of damage is dangerous."
You then accused me of "cherry picking" a creature that was good against evokers, when you picked it specifically for not being good against evokers....but I guess you didn't read it, which clears up the confusion.
I didn't see a single thing to show I was wrong.
Not surprising.
You did not show more effective tactics than dead in one round.
No I didn't, nor did I show equally effective tactics than dead in one round. My purpose was to show that your claim of dead in one round or two from blasting didn't take into account saving throws or spell resistance, and when those were factored in, your claim didn't hold up.
I provided you with evidence. You seemed to have ignored it. I suggest you look over any number of Pathfinder designed adventure paths and prove I can't effectively killed with blasting 70 or 80% of encounters.
Saying that you looked over a bunch of adventures is an appeal from personal experience, but I'm glad the math worked differently for you than in any CR appropriate encounter I could come up with here.
Once again, I provided you with proof, you need merely apply your systematic reasoning to encounter analysis in a module.
We've gone from evidence to proof now? Let me look over your previous posts...nope, don't see any proof. I see a claim about a 15th level build doing 200+ damage per round that has been debunked.
I've seen you restate that claim restricting the creatures to ones where they had "low reflex type saves and no acid resistance" and again the claim was debunked, even within those parameters.
I'll give you this, your blast build does a lot of damage for spell blasting. It just doesn't meet the claims you've made.
Considering I was playing D&D back with the Basic Set. Doubtful you've been playing D&D wizards longer than I have since they didn't exist even close to as they are now.
They didn't exist even close than they are now pre 3E. You were the one throwing around the "playing wizards 20+ years" stuff.
I expect we started playing on the same red book. Your 20+ years claim makes me think I can beat you by at least a decade though.
Off topic: one guy I play with started with that 4 pamphlet original set back in '74, he has multiples in his collection and can name off the value of each (which is apparently thousands of bucks). He's played longer than either of us!
I'll give you some more:
A whole bunch of examples where you control first and then blast?
I've been fighting you all this time, yet in practice you've been using my recommended tactic all along?
All that wasted time! Give me one good reason I should ever forgive you?!
It's nice to mentally masturbate
Hmmmm...good point. OK you are forgiven.
Take your debate to another thread. I'll not have you anti-blasters kill my thread via filibustering.
Wow, chill out Ravingdork. Was just having some good fun, and if you wanna go by absolute RAW it pretty much nails it that blasting inferior since you can just jump out of the way. However, I think that's stupid too, so I won't mention it again. On a side note, I already took it to another thread, where we are discussing how far we can get a monk to jump in a single round via domino effects. :P
================
Also, I have a question. Exactly why is it that the projected damage output of blasters seems to keep rising without anything to back it up. The mechanics we had seen posted in blaster's favor were around 200 damage, and then I see people shouting 250+ damage, and then you yourself (I think in the other thread you made about all wizards should be blasters) said 300+ damage. Where's the inflation coming from dude?
Take your debate to another thread. I'll not have you anti-blasters kill my thread via filibustering.Wow, chill out Ravingdork. Was just having some good fun, and if you wanna go by absolute RAW it pretty much nails it that blasting inferior since you can just jump out of the way. However, I think that's stupid too, so I won't mention it again. On a side note, I already took it to another thread, where we are discussing how far we can get a monk to jump in a single round via domino effects. :P
================
Also, I have a question. Exactly why is it that the projected damage output of blasters seems to keep rising without anything to back it up. The mechanics we had seen posted in blaster's favor were around 200 damage, and then I see people shouting 250+ damage, and then you yourself (I think in the other thread you made about all wizards should be blasters) said 300+ damage. Where's the inflation coming from dude?
Wishful thinking? :)
Wishful thinking? :)Take your debate to another thread. I'll not have you anti-blasters kill my thread via filibustering.Wow, chill out Ravingdork. Was just having some good fun, and if you wanna go by absolute RAW it pretty much nails it that blasting inferior since you can just jump out of the way. However, I think that's stupid too, so I won't mention it again. On a side note, I already took it to another thread, where we are discussing how far we can get a monk to jump in a single round via domino effects. :P
================
Also, I have a question. Exactly why is it that the projected damage output of blasters seems to keep rising without anything to back it up. The mechanics we had seen posted in blaster's favor were around 200 damage, and then I see people shouting 250+ damage, and then you yourself (I think in the other thread you made about all wizards should be blasters) said 300+ damage. Where's the inflation coming from dude?
Well when it goes from highest displayed value to 25-50% greater, I expect someone to do some 'splainin'. :P
Thanks for the complement!
Np. In the end it's not that I think blasters are utterly useless crap(and you never make that claim either) It's just that as a player who values efficiency and effectiveness the "God" wizard style is just the superior choice. Maybe it won't always be that way but for this edition of the rules that's kinda just the way it is(barring any super super nice future blaster additions from Paizo)
Wishful thinking? :)Take your debate to another thread. I'll not have you anti-blasters kill my thread via filibustering.Wow, chill out Ravingdork. Was just having some good fun, and if you wanna go by absolute RAW it pretty much nails it that blasting inferior since you can just jump out of the way. However, I think that's stupid too, so I won't mention it again. On a side note, I already took it to another thread, where we are discussing how far we can get a monk to jump in a single round via domino effects. :P
================
Also, I have a question. Exactly why is it that the projected damage output of blasters seems to keep rising without anything to back it up. The mechanics we had seen posted in blaster's favor were around 200 damage, and then I see people shouting 250+ damage, and then you yourself (I think in the other thread you made about all wizards should be blasters) said 300+ damage. Where's the inflation coming from dude?
I posted an example of 356 DMG per round without a save.
(it depends on intensified spell working on scorching ray, otherwise it will deal a bit less damage... 255 DMG per round without a save that should be... at lvl 12 (minimum level for that combo) you have like 247 dmg per round)
Haha. Nice. Scorching ray is it? Well that definitely is a nice spell for metamagic. Of course, unless you also get Point Blank and Precise Shot, you're probably going to really dislike a lot of the penalties if they're in melee. Light cover or cover providing a further +4 AC to the target. Having to deal with Blur/Displacement/Concealment. The fact that lesser globe of invulnerability completely negates it, or the fact hat spell turning bounces it back at you, or the fact that resist energy will shave 30 points off each ray. Still has to get through Spell Resistance.
Honestly, the thing really should die.
Seems like this has turned into 2 against many, so I'll throw in a few words. First some history, my experiences with blasting come from a character I started in second edition a few moons ago and we did things a bit different back then, we used the character option books and we had critical failures for failed saves, as has been noted, most monsters had considerably fewer hit points. Evocation was a stronger school back then, for sure.
I like the character so he's stayed with me. 95% of his experience lies between 5th and 10th level, the remaining 5% would be restarts from 3rd to 5th level. He's currently 10th level, buffed int is 23. And he's human, not some amalgam of oddities.
Specialty:
Admixture
Feats:
Imp Initiative (+8 initiative altogether)
Spell Focus: Evo
Grtr Spell Focus: Evo
Heighten Spell
Selective Spell
Golem Constructor
Elemental Focus: Fire
Grtr Elemental Focus: Fire
Scribe Scroll
Traits:
Magical Lineage: Fireball
Reactionary
So he's built around throwing the balls of fire and while he's certainly good at it, its not his only trick. Heighten can make his FB a 4th or 5th level spell making the DC's 24 or 25 respectively, adding a Selective Spell means I can exclude up to 6 people from that area, Magical Lineage means, I can do a Heightened, Selective FB as a 5th level spell. Versatile Evocation allows me to change the element of a spell as needed, I'm still good against fire resistant or immune monsters, but my dc's will suffer. Elemental Manipulation means you can negate 2 types of elemental damage with 1 spell.
Battle field control spells as everyone argues are still incredibly useful, but with blasters you have added options, battlefield control mixed with the ability to remove allies from the blast makes your blast spells much more useful in most situations.
While blasting, my purpose is not to do heavy damage to 1 target, with the current rule set this isn't the character I'd choose to do that with (I have an archer fighter if I want to blow away single mobs in a round). My goal as a blaster is to put medium-good damage on as many targets as possible, the closer stacked and the more targets the better. If I need to take something out of the fight, Resilient Sphere typically works very well (granted it has to be smaller than 10ft tall), or a Wall of Force can also often help considerably. Wands and scrolls help cover many contingency areas of course, I can also cast the same summoning spells that other wizards can.
General Rules for Blasting:
1. Never damage an ally (hindering your party is the worst thing you can do and it gains blasters a bad name)
2. Unless you can hit 4+ targets, do something else.
3. If it's an outsider, do something else - unless you know it has low SR and not immune to your damage type.
4. If its a dragon, do something else - preferably, gtfo.
5. If you can battlefield control to maximize effectiveness, do so.
6. Strike first, strike hard. Invisibility is your friend.
7. Strike from maximum range when possible.
8. Don't be predictable. Fireball Fireball Fireball WILL get you killed.
9. AoE works around corners and concealment.
10. Keep your options open.
The only thing that will change any minds is either for these folks to try some blaster builds themselves to see how effective they are or have someone come into their adventures and show them how a blaster build can be highly effective. Theorycrafting on a board accomplishes nothing.
My build is proven through play. But I'm hardly going to sit here and write a book for a bunch of folks that think they know better to show them how many encounters blasting is effective against versus their attempts to pick a few encounters where it isn't as effective.
If some folks like to use battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing over and over and over again, have at it. It works. I know it works. I've done it for years. I know how effective illusions are. How great wall spells are at dividing a battlefield. How great summoned creatures are for nothing more than cover, additional damage, and nuisance targets. I've used enervate making enemies nearly useless. I funnel enemies all the time. I've done all this stuff. It's old hat and has been boring for years.
So I've also played with two new blaster builds and have found them to be equally effective. Was blasting as effective in Core? No, it wasn't. Blasting was pretty gimp before the addition of the Advanced Players Guide and Ultimate Magic. Now it is a very viable option for arcane casters on par with other options including battlefield control,buffing, and debuffing.
If you're still only using Core and the Advanced Players Guide, then I suggest staying away from blasting and choosing an alternate build. If you're using Ultimate Magic, then you can make blasters strong enough to put blasting spells back on par with other options because you do enough damage to outright kill 70 to 80% (probably higher) of what you fight and thus gain the same damage mitigating advantages of battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing with minimal spell expenditures.
If you like the Pathfinder magic system, then play with it. Don't limit yourself to one style of play and assume it is the end all be all. Some of us that constantly experiment with new options be it spells, feats, archetypes, or classes find other equally efficient ways of accomplishing the same task. I highly recommend you try other builds before you dismiss them as less viable. You may find you have fun trying something different and figuring out how to make it work at an optimal level. I know I do. I would be literally bored to tears if all I ever did was use the same tired old wizard tricks over and over and over again as though I were working a daily job.
Haha. Nice. Scorching ray is it? Well that definitely is a nice spell for metamagic. Of course, unless you also get Point Blank and Precise Shot, you're probably going to really dislike a lot of the penalties if they're in melee. Light cover or cover providing a further +4 AC to the target. Having to deal with Blur/Displacement/Concealment. The fact that lesser globe of invulnerability completely negates it, or the fact hat spell turning bounces it back at you, or the fact that resist energy will shave 30 points off each ray. Still has to get through Spell Resistance.
Honestly, the thing really should die.
*sigh* seriously guys.
seriously guys.
You complained that EVERYONE SPEAKS ABOUT THOSE DAMAGE NUMBERS BUT NOBODY PROVES HE CAN DEAL IT.
Then I bring up an example how to EASILY do it in lvl 12 even without a save and then its OMG ITS NEGATABLE WITH THIS AND THIS.
Arguing with you is rather useless because you will always find one spell, one monster or one whatever that will negate the thing the other one is proposing and thus it is completely worthless. Even if it only takes 3 feats like my combo.
Get over it guys... srsly.
Speaking of doing high damage, it seems like it would be easily achievable with fire snake.
Say you're 10th level. That means that each square it hits deals 10d6 damage and it hits 10 squares. The only stipulation for placement of the spell is that the squares have to be right next to eachother. That means you can have the snake travel from point a to point b back again to point a. Even if the second point is hitting nothing, at this level you're dealing 50d6 (10d6 five times) to one target, possibly 2.
At level 20 the snake does 15d6 damage per square for 20 squares which means 150d6 to one or possibly two targets (15d6 ten times)
Speaking of doing high damage, it seems like it would be easily achievable with fire snake.
Say you're 10th level. That means that each square it hits deals 10d6 damage and it hits 10 squares. The only stipulation for placement of the spell is that the squares have to be right next to eachother. That means you can have the snake travel from point a to point b back again to point a. Even if the second point is hitting nothing, at this level you're dealing 50d6 (10d6 five times) to one target, possibly 2.
At level 20 the snake does 15d6 damage per square for 20 squares which means 150d6 to one or possibly two targets (15d6 ten times)
It can't damage the same creature more than once.
|
It can't damage the same creature more than once.Speaking of doing high damage, it seems like it would be easily achievable with fire snake.
Say you're 10th level. That means that each square it hits deals 10d6 damage and it hits 10 squares. The only stipulation for placement of the spell is that the squares have to be right next to eachother. That means you can have the snake travel from point a to point b back again to point a. Even if the second point is hitting nothing, at this level you're dealing 50d6 (10d6 five times) to one target, possibly 2.
At level 20 the snake does 15d6 damage per square for 20 squares which means 150d6 to one or possibly two targets (15d6 ten times)
Link Where does it say that?
You complained that EVERYONE SPEAKS ABOUT THOSE DAMAGE NUMBERS BUT NOBODY PROVES HE CAN DEAL IT.
That's correct.
Then I bring up an example how to EASILY do it in lvl 12 even without a save and then its OMG ITS NEGATABLE WITH THIS AND THIS.
You did not "prove you could deal" that damage. You haven't rolled to hit yet, determined resistances, etc.
Ashiel tried to point that out to you, before you degenerated to ALL CAPS RAGE!
Each and every time you try that combo, you are going to have to roll to hit (3 times), which means you are going to average less damage than you claim in every combat, every time, unless you need a 2 to hit (in which case misses and crits will cancel out on average).
Ignoring that makes your claim demonstrably false, and we don't even have to use an example, because ignoring your to-hit roll is a universal mistake regardless of the situation.
Arguing with you is rather useless because you will always find one spell, one monster or one whatever that will negate the thing the other one is proposing and thus it is completely worthless.
Here we go again.
You didn't take "to hit" or any resistances into account when you "proved" how much damage your build would deal.
That's a mistake. Ashiel pointed it out. That's what we do here.
Get over it guys... srsly.
It's not about the damage, it's about the false claim that what you roll and what the monster takes are always (or even usually) the same.
There is a chance if you roll 100 points of damage, that the creature targeted will take 100 points of damage, but there are all kinds of things that can prevent that from happening. In your examples case, "all kinds of things" is even a bigger list than usual.
Ignoring them all and then proclaiming that you will do 100 points of damage is going to have the response that you've ignored some things.
You said it yourself: You gave us a damage number but you didn't prove you could DEAL it.
The description of the spell notes how to determine its area. At no point does it ever say 'creatures take 1d6 damage per level for each square of the spell's area they occupy'.
|
|
The description of the spell notes how to determine its area. At no point does it ever say 'creatures take 1d6 damage per level for each square of the spell's area they occupy'.
I could be wrong here, but I believe he is implying that if you had three squares like so:
A B C
And creature X is standing in square "B", and you start the Fire Snake in square "B", bounce it to A, then back to B, then back to A, then back to B, rinse and repeat, you can hit the monster multiple times. There is nothing in the spell text that says you cant do that, and it would allow for multiple hits.
It does not work like that.
All the spell does is give you a customisable area of contiguous squares. If you decide to bounce it back and forth, all that does is waste squares and give you a smaller area.
|
|
At the very least I'd say that its up to interpretation, and I disagree with your interpretation. At no point does it say that you cannot overlap the squares, it just says that each square must be adjacent to the previous one, and bouncing back and forth between two squares fulfills that very requirement. Common sense would suggest that each time the spell affects a particular square the subject in the square is prone to any effect that affects the square, which allows for multiple hits. The spell also says that the snake takes any shape you desire. The spell also says that creatures in the path of the snake take the damage, and it doesn't rule out being in the path of the snake multiple times.
I'd allow it in my game.
At the very least I'd say that its up to interpretation, and I disagree with your interpretation. At no point does it say that you cannot overlap the squares, it just says that each square must be adjacent to the previous one, and bouncing back and forth between two squares fulfills that very requirement. Common sense would suggest that each time the spell affects a particular square the subject in the square is prone to any effect that affects the square, which allows for multiple hits. The spell also says that the snake takes any shape you desire. The spell also says that creatures in the path of the snake take the damage, and it doesn't rule out being in the path of the snake multiple times.
I'd allow it in my game.
I am having a difficult time envisioning any scenario where that is common sense. Do you truly intend for a 5th level spell to deal up to level squared x 1d6 damage?
Edit: I think I see what's happening here. Is English a second language for you?
Let's go through this step by step.
Area see text
Here, we see the spell has an area, and so functions according to the rules for area spells. Without special exception, an area spell affects each subject in the area once only. If it can affect the same subject more than once, it must specify in the spell's description. Otherwise, it does not, no matter how much you want it to.
You create a sinuous line of flames that you may shape as desired. The fire snake affects one 5-foot square per caster level, and each square must be adjacent to the previous square, starting with you. The fire snake may not extend beyond its maximum range.
This part of the spell describes how to determine the spell's area. This is a series of contiguous squares, and nothing says the squares can't overlap.
Creatures in the path of the fire snake take 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 15d6).
This part is simple. Is a creature in the path of the snake? Yes or no. It doesn't matter how many times it's in the path. Once is enough to do damage. More than once makes no difference as the spell has no specific callout for checking the path multiple times.
Well, I AM from Kentucky, so that might answer your question...but please explain to me why you don't interpret the spell this way?
Got to agree with UR here. You are either in the path of the snake or your aren't. It's a yes or no question. The square is either on fire or it isn't.
This part is simple. Is a creature in the path of the snake? Yes or no. It doesn't matter how many times it's in the path. Once is enough to do damage. More than once makes no difference as the spell has no specific callout for checking the path multiple times.
I can understand this but I disagree with you and Treantmonk (sorry :P, might as well throw a hey, long time no see TM in here too). The spell does not reference if the square that the creature is on is already on fire and if so, do no damage. The spell only checks to see if there is a creature in the square. If so, the spell does damage. If not, then no damage is dealt as there is no creature to deal it to.
I can understand this but I disagree with you and Treantmonk (sorry :P, might as well throw a hey, long time no see TM in here too). The spell does not reference if the square that the creature is on is already on fire and if so, do no damage. The spell only checks to see if there is a creature in the square. If so, the spell does damage. If not, then no damage is dealt as there is no creature to deal it to.
What I don't understand is why people are so desperate to make this spell do ridiculous things.
It does not and never did check per square. It checks if a creature is in the path. It's a yes or no. It's not 'how many times is it in the path?'.
|
|
Let's go through this step by step.
Area see textHere, we see the spell has an area, and so functions according to the rules for area spells. Without special exception, an area spell affects each subject in the area once only. If it can affect the same subject more than once, it must specify in the spell's description. Otherwise, it does not, no matter how much you want it to.
Ok, I beg to differ yet again. [url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html] Halfway down the page is where the PRD discusses "Areas" and "lines" and at no point in any part of the text, either under the generic heading of "area" or "line" does it say that a creature can only be affected once.
Area: Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below.
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.
You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell's area, anything within that square is within the spell's area. If the spell's area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.
Burst, Emanation, or Spread: Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell's point of origin and measure its effect from that point.
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.
An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.
A spread spell extends out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes.
Cone, Cylinder, Line, or Sphere: Most spells that affect an area have a particular shape.
A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quarter-circle in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and widens out as it goes. Most cones are either bursts or emanations (see above), and thus won't go around corners.
When casting a cylinder-shaped spell, you select the spell's point of origin. This point is the center of a horizontal circle, and the spell shoots down from the circle, filling a cylinder. A cylinder-shaped spell ignores any obstructions within its area.
A line-shaped spell shoots away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares through which the line passes.
A sphere-shaped spell expands from its point of origin to fill a spherical area. Spheres may be bursts, emanations, or spreads.
Creatures: A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select. The area might be a spherical burst, a cone-shaped burst, or some other shape.
Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead. Creatures in the spell's area that are not of the appropriate type do not count against the creatures affected.
Objects: A spell with this kind of area affects objects within an area you select (as Creatures, but affecting objects instead).
Other: A spell can have a unique area, as defined in its description.
(S) Shapeable: If an area or effect entry ends with “(S),” you can shape the spell. A shaped effect or area can have no dimension smaller than 10 feet. Many effects or areas are given as cubes to make it easy to model irregular shapes. Three-dimensional volumes are most often needed to define aerial or underwater effects and areas.
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.
Find me any solid straight up rule that states your interpretation of the rule.
|
|
Well, I AM from Kentucky, so that might answer your question...but please explain to me why you don't interpret the spell this way?Got to agree with UR here. You are either in the path of the snake or your aren't. It's a yes or no question. The square is either on fire or it isn't.
Exactly, and this point is not in contention. What is in contention is whether or not a creature can be in the path of the same line more than once...and since the spell dictates that the line can be in any direction so long as the next square is adjacent to the previous square, there should be no problem with allowing a creature to be "bounced" back and forth through the effect more than once.
Can a creature be shot by arrows from the same archer in the same round more than once?
Can a creature be hit by the same sword in the same round more than once?
If so then a creature can be hit by the same line in the same round more than once.
Common sense.
It's clearly not common sense if you believe that.
You might as well try to convince us that Base Attack Bonus +3 means you get three bonus attacks.
, there should be no problem with allowing a creature to be "bounced" back and forth through the effect more than once.
The spell does not reference if the square that the creature is on is already on fire and if so, do no damage.
First of all, hey Ed! It's been a couple years. Welcome to Pathfinder!
Secondly, either I'm missing something or both of you are. When I read each of your posts (specifically what I've quoted), I get the sense that you are treating this like an effect that moves.
There is no "already on fire", or "bounce back and forth", the effect is instantaneous. There is no movement, no getting hit twice.
You start with nowhere on fire, then instantaneously fire appears in the squares in the area of effect, then it instantly disappears. There is no square that catches fire first, or last, it is all in the exact same instant, and it instantly is gone. That's how instantaneous duration works.
Can a creature be shot by arrows from the same archer in the same round more than once?
Some spells have a 1 round duration. This is not one of them. From a technical standpoint, it has no duration at all.
Can a creature be hit by the same sword in the same round more than once?
...but you only hit once per swing
If so then a creature can be hit by the same line in the same round more than once.
Not if that line disappears instantly after it appears. It does not move, it's an area. Some squares are in the area, some squares are not. There is no "hitting the same square again" because there is no "again", that implies duration.
Thank you. That answer makes sense and now I realize is the correct interpretation. Its not the area of effect that was the issue, it was the duration.
True, and some will react negatively to having 50d6 damage as a benchmark for a 5th level spell cast by a 10th level character.
|
Thank you. That answer makes sense and now I realize is the correct interpretation. Its not the area of effect that was the issue, it was the duration.
There is also spell description text for fire snake that states "creatures in the path of the fire snake take 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 15d6)." You're either in the path (and take damage) or you're not.
A Huge creature (3 x 3 squares) could not be made to take 81d6 damage from a 9th level Wizard casting the spell and targeting the nine contiguous squares it happens to be occupying. He'd be in the path, and would therefore take 9d6 damage.
First of all, hey Ed! It's been a couple years. Welcome to Pathfinder!
Yeah, It's good to see you active :D. I've been enjoying pathfinder quite a bit and have posted some work with various stuff over at BG. Been having some fun with a few games here and there, still looking for at least one more at the moment too. I take it you've been good?
Secondly, either I'm missing something or both of you are. When I read each of your posts (specifically what I've quoted), I get the sense that you are treating this like an effect that moves.There is no "already on fire", or "bounce back and forth", the effect is instantaneous. There is no movement, no getting hit twice.
You start with nowhere on fire, then instantaneously fire appears in the squares in the area of effect, then it instantly disappears. There is no square that catches fire first, or last, it is all in the exact same instant, and it instantly is gone. That's how instantaneous duration works.
I can see this. The thing that originally caught my eye was that you could move it in any path that you wanted, even if you looped it around (not back in forth between two squares but actually going from that square creating a square of fire, that it would work but due to it being instantaneous it doesn't seem like it would. It is still an incredibly strong attack spell.
Ah well, once they release more splat books, things will pop up.
Wishful thinking? :)Take your debate to another thread. I'll not have you anti-blasters kill my thread via filibustering.Wow, chill out Ravingdork. Was just having some good fun, and if you wanna go by absolute RAW it pretty much nails it that blasting inferior since you can just jump out of the way. However, I think that's stupid too, so I won't mention it again. On a side note, I already took it to another thread, where we are discussing how far we can get a monk to jump in a single round via domino effects. :P
================
Also, I have a question. Exactly why is it that the projected damage output of blasters seems to keep rising without anything to back it up. The mechanics we had seen posted in blaster's favor were around 200 damage, and then I see people shouting 250+ damage, and then you yourself (I think in the other thread you made about all wizards should be blasters) said 300+ damage. Where's the inflation coming from dude?
I posted an example of 356 DMG per round without a save.
(it depends on intensified spell working on scorching ray, otherwise it will deal a bit less damage... 255 DMG per round without a save that should be... at lvl 12 (minimum level for that combo) you have like 247 dmg per round)
Intensified Spell does not work with scorching ray. Intensified Spell work with spells whose damage die is level dependent like fireball, and cone of cold. Scorching Ray does not do damage die by levels. It does rays by levels.
The only thing that will change any minds is either for these folks to try some blaster builds themselves to see how effective they are or have someone come into their adventures and show them how a blaster build can be highly effective. Theorycrafting on a board accomplishes nothing.
My build is proven through play. But I'm hardly going to sit here and write a book for a bunch of folks that think they know better to show them how many encounters blasting is effective against versus their attempts to pick a few encounters where it isn't as effective.
If some folks like to use battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing over and over and over again, have at it. It works. I know it works. I've done it for years. I know how effective illusions are. How great wall spells are at dividing a battlefield. How great summoned creatures are for nothing more than cover, additional damage, and nuisance targets. I've used enervate making enemies nearly useless. I funnel enemies all the time. I've done all this stuff. It's old hat and has been boring for years.
So I've also played with two new blaster builds and have found them to be equally effective. Was blasting as effective in Core? No, it wasn't. Blasting was pretty gimp before the addition of the Advanced Players Guide and Ultimate Magic. Now it is a very viable option for arcane casters on par with other options including battlefield control,buffing, and debuffing.
If you're still only using Core and the Advanced Players Guide, then I suggest staying away from blasting and choosing an alternate build. If you're using Ultimate Magic, then you can make blasters strong enough to put blasting spells back on par with other options because you do enough damage to outright kill 70 to 80% (probably higher) of what you fight and thus gain the same damage mitigating advantages of battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing with minimal spell expenditures.
If you like the Pathfinder magic system, then play with it. Don't...
More theorycrafting accusations. Nobody said blasting could not be effective either. We are saying, or at least most of us, in case someone did insult blasters, that is is less efficient and less effective overall. That is all. The problem is the OP called it "hate", and people treat this thread like he is a mindreader even though we have said otherwise. There is no hate. If there was hate we would be saying never choose a blasting spell ever because it is fail or something similar.
To the OP, not agreeing with your playstyle is not "hate".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More theorycrafting accusations. Nobody said blasting could not be effective either. We are saying, or at least most of us, in case someone did insult blasters, that is is less efficient and less effective overall. That is all. The problem is the OP called it "hate", and people treat this thread like he is a mindreader even though we have said otherwise. There is no hate. If there was hate we would be saying never choose a blasting spell ever because it is fail or something similar.
To the OP, not agreeing with your playstyle is not "hate".
So true.
Each and every time you try that combo, you are going to have to roll to hit (3 times), which means you are going to average less damage than you claim in every combat, every time, unless you need a 2 to hit (in which case misses and crits will cancel out on average).
How many of your precious crowd control supercombos have we seen proven in combat yet?
Except for your summoning math which is just as unusable as soon as the DM attacks you while you are casting a full round I have seen no "proofs" of how well it will really work out in the end.
To hit of the wizard at lvl 12: BAB +6; Dex +5... no feats... means we end up with something like +11.
Looking at my table of CR12 mobsters we will run around somewhere between 12 and 14 in average as touch AC.
85% of the attacks will hit, 5% have the chance to crit.
0.85*dmg+0.05*0.85*2*dmg.
So we come around with 325.38 DMG per round after the to hit. Was really worth the effort, or?
Oh right... now the good old SR will wreck your damage output comes into play.
I need 3 feats and 1 trait for my combo so I still end up with 5 free feats. Probably SP and GSP will jump onto my list.
So I have 12 CL + 4 (GSP) and probably even additional +2 for being an elf. So I end up with 1d20+18 vs a spell resistance of 23 (probably close to the average for SRs of this level). so its a 75% chance that I will succeed dumping my damage to 244.41.
If you use a rod with that MM feat that gives +5 against SR this damage will go up to 284.71 dmg again.
If I look at the CR 12 mobster table again probably 20% of those have a resistance or immunity against acid.
The remaining 80% all have less than 244.1 HPs and thus you will blast them in one round in average with
SR and to hit rolls counted in.
Against the 20% of the possible encounters (as you will point out) I suggest changing the element or using another spell.
It's not about the damage, it's about the false claim that what you roll and what the monster takes are always (or even usually) the same.There is a chance if you roll 100 points of damage, that the creature targeted will take 100 points of damage, but there are all kinds of things that can prevent that from happening. In your examples case, "all kinds of things" is even a bigger list than usual.
Ignoring them all and then proclaiming that you will do 100 points of damage is going to have the response that you've ignored some things.
Ah ok. You mean like SR will screw up alot of your control spells. A simple Freedom of Movement will rightout kill off 85% of them. The creature having a high CMD (more common than some specific resistances) will screw alot of your controls. A lot of movement forms like flying or burrow or sometimes even climbing will often enough completely negate your attempts to control it because it will just make it over the wall as part of its move action or just go below it or just go above your control spell AoE or burrow beneath it... ?
How many of your precious crowd control supercombos have we seen proven in combat yet?
Each and every time you try that combo, you are going to have to roll to hit (3 times), which means you are going to average less damage than you claim in every combat, every time, unless you need a 2 to hit (in which case misses and crits will cancel out on average).
I used them before I read his guide. Now once again I don't agree with the entire guide, but for the most part it is correct. His ideas are not just crowd control. He also likes summons, buffing, and debuffing.
Except for your summoning math which is just as unusable as soon as the DM attacks you while you are casting a full round I have seen no "proofs" of how well it will really work out in the end.
Unless the bad guys ready an action the spell will more than likely go off. If the bad guys do ready an action then it really does not matter what you tried to cast.
To hit of the wizard at lvl 12: BAB +6; Dex +5... no feats... means we end up with something like +11.
Looking at my table of CR12 mobsters we will run around somewhere between 12 and 14 in average as touch AC.85% of the attacks will hit, 5% have the chance to crit.
0.85*dmg+0.05*0.85*2*dmg.
So we come around with 325.38 DMG per round after the to hit. Was really worth the effort, or?
Are you accounting for shooting into melee, soft cover, SR, and I see you accounted for the crit with the +0.05, but but about the possible nat 1.
Also I am not seeing any math done here.
At level 12 you have to roll an 11 against a CR 12 monster to bypass its SR if it has any. If you took SP and GSP then you have to roll a 7 assuming you are human. That is a 35% chance to fail or a 65% chance of success.
Example:4 X 3.5(average of a D6) X 1.5(empower spell feat) X .85(average to hit) x .65(chance to bypass SR. and so on. Be sure to include SR, and I once again that feat you are trying to use does not work with scorching ray.
Ah ok. You mean like SR will screw up alot of your control spells. A simple Freedom of Movement will rightout kill off 85% of them. The creature having a high CMD (more common than some specific resistances) will screw alot of your controls. A lot of movement forms like flying or burrow or sometimes even climbing will often enough completely negate your attempts to control it because it will just make it over the wall as part of its move action or just go below it or just go above your control spell AoE or burrow beneath it... ?
Conjuration spells ignore SR. A knowledge check will let you know which monster you are fighting. The spell penetration feats are availible so the bypassing SR issue is not going to be too bad if it comes up.
If battle field control is not the best option the there are other options.The God Wizards three jobs are: Control the Battlefield, Debuff the enemy, Buff your
allies. Lets look at each separately....
How many of your precious crowd control supercombos have we seen proven in combat yet?
The difference between you and I is that I don't claim to have "proven" anything. I give my opinion, that people can take or leave as they wish (Paragraph 1 of my wizard guide warns that the guide is opinion only)
You claim to have "proven" something except your "proof" is flawed, then when that is pointed out, it's ALL CAPS FOR YOU!
85% of the attacks will hit, 5% have the chance to crit.
Still ignoring firing into melee and cover. These are not rare circumstances. The Wizard is usually behind other party members, your wizard doesn't have improved initiative to fire before non-casting party members close to melee, etc.
I need 3 feats and 1 trait for my combo so I still end up with 5 free feats. Probably SP and GSP will jump onto my list.
But no precise shot or improved precise shot recommended (will you recommend this feat chain to make one spell combo work? Let's see.)
If you use a rod with that MM feat that gives +5 against SR this damage will go up to 284.71 dmg again.
As long as we ignore things that regularly cause penalties to hit without taking the proper archery feats, which you didn't take.
The remaining 80% all have less than 244.1 HPs and thus you will blast them in one round in average with
SR and to hit rolls counted in.
except once again, only if you ignore things and hope nobody notices.
Against the 20% of the possible encounters (as you will point out) I suggest changing the element or using another spell.
No reason to. Your omissions are so common (like a character entering melee in combat) that it's kind of pointless to enter specifics, when your generalities are incorrect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to say that I don't hate blasting spells at all, they are fun. While I traditionally have chosen mostly Debuff and BC spells for my PCs wizards (and now feel even more confident in that choice having read Treanmonk's guide) that's only because as a PC I have a vested interest in winning. As a DM my NPCs are going to continue blasting PCs all day long Ahahahaha! (a good choice I think in that as had been stated many times, damage doesn't inhibit actions so no PC gets bored by missing turns.)
How many of your precious crowd control supercombos have we seen proven in combat yet?The difference between you and I is that I don't claim to have "proven" anything. I give my opinion, that people can take or leave as they wish (Paragraph 1 of my wizard guide warns that the guide is opinion only)
You claim to have "proven" something except your "proof" is flawed, then when that is pointed out, it's ALL CAPS FOR YOU!
I have proven quite a lot already. You just keep coming up with additional restriction after restriction to make it seem like I haven't proven anything. If your skills at eristic dialectic would be a bit better to have this things going subtle, I might even pay tribute to them.
But standing there saying "I don't prove things" but "You have to and you pretend to" is not working out. This is a discussion about wether blasting is viable or not. You are taking the position that it is not.So if you have a position in a discussion get some arguments ready which ultimatively aim at the goal of proving your point to be the right one.
But in the end that tactic of yours is nothing except trying to make your own position invulnerable because "you are just saying" and having a good striking position on other peoples arguments.
So either you give up your tactics or stop arguing.
Still ignoring firing into melee and cover. These are not rare circumstances. The Wizard is usually behind other party members, your wizard doesn't have improved initiative to fire before non-casting party members close to melee, etc.
This was the round 1 opening strike. If you are really after your melee guys (I was assuming 16 Dex +4 enhancement but we can easily up that to 18 +4 or even +6 for an elf upping your initiative to +7 without any feats) in the initiative queue (your fighter will have what? +1? +3?) he might want to consider delaying right after you.
Or you take two of the remaining free feats and go for precise shot or take improved initiative if you think its so important or coordinate with the party fighter and let him delay on you or let him make a 5ft step right before you blast so he isn't providing cover and doesn't have the mobster in melee.I simply do not care.
But no precise shot or improved precise shot recommended (will you recommend this feat chain to make one spell combo work? Let's see.)
Dude. This is no Handbook on "how to play your blaster right". You wanted to see how you can deal that damage. You got the example and now be a good boy and show some gratitude.
As long as we ignore things that regularly cause penalties to hit without taking the proper archery feats, which you didn't take.
Repeating your arguments which you took up after seeing that it could work out well won't make them any better or more relevant.
except once again, only if you ignore things and hope nobody notices.
3rd time now? Gonna make your point any better...
No reason to. Your omissions are so common (like a character entering melee in combat) that it's kind of pointless to enter specifics, when your generalities are incorrect.
4th time now? I seem to REALLY get that you are right and I am wrong now. Thanks for pointing that out!
I just want to say that I don't hate blasting spells at all, they are fun. While I traditionally have chosen mostly Debuff and BC spells for my PCs wizards (and now feel even more confident in that choice having read Treanmonk's guide) that's only because as a PC I have a vested interest in winning. As a DM my NPCs are going to continue blasting PCs all day long Ahahahaha! (a good choice I think in that as had been stated many times, damage doesn't inhibit actions so no PC gets bored by missing turns.)
As long as the DM doesn't go havok with his blasters and kills half the group instantly just because they lost initiative once...
Then you might consider half your group missing a round as a not too bad scenario.
But gibbing your players without them standing a chance is rather unfair and bad DMing anyway.
Alienfreak, please address the issue that Intensified Spell does not work with Scorching Ray. Wraithstrike has pointed this out multiple times.
Alienfreak, please address the issue that Intensified Spell does not work with Scorching Ray. Wraithstrike has pointed this out multiple times.I had assumed you got another scorching ray out of the deal. Same thing with number of magic missiles.
Get more damage dice, they are more rays or missiles.
That might not be correct. Have the developers said differently?
I see no problem with it not working. It increased damage dice as if the spell would scale for five more levels.
If the damage dice of Scorching Ray would scale for five more levels it would mean one more ray.Also balancing vise its no problem. It increased the damage from 12d6 to 16d6. Thats only 33% more damage gotten out of it while Fireball comes from 10d6 and goes to 15d6 whats an increase of 50%.
The feattext
An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels. You must actually have sufficient caster levels to surpass the maximum in order to benefit from this feat. No other variables of the spell are affected, and spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level are not affected by this feat.
There is nothing stated as the progression of damage dice has to be to affected.
The only limit is that damage that is not modified by caster level is not increased. But in the case of Scorching Ray it is definatly affected by caster level...I think this is a typical "Boon Companion" wording which Paizo often uses...