Is it just me, or is the sands of time spell (from UM) extremely underpowered? It's a level 3 spell and all it does is advance a target to the next age category. All that does is give it a -1 penalty to its physical ability scores (or worsens an older target's ability score penalty from age by 1). Alternatively, you can do 3d6 + 1/level damage to a construct, object or undead creature.
That seems to me to be a very weak effect for a level 3 single target spell, especially when it requires a touch. Neither the debuff nor the damage are impressive at all. Compare this to 2nd level touch spells like touch of idiocy or ghoul touch, for example. Those spells have much nastier effects and are a full level lower.
Am I missing something, or is this spell just really weak?
Is it just me, or is the sands of time spell (from UM) extremely underpowered? It's a level 3 spell and all it does is advance a target to the next age category. All that does is give it a -1 penalty to its physical ability scores (or worsens an older target's ability score penalty from age by 1). Alternatively, you can do 3d6 + 1/level damage to a construct, object or undead creature.
That seems to me to be a very weak effect for a level 3 single target spell, especially when it requires a touch. Neither the debuff nor the damage are impressive at all. Compare this to 2nd level touch spells like touch of idiocy or ghoul touch, for example. Those spells have much nastier effects and are a full level lower.
Am I missing something, or is this spell just really weak?
well, for starters your counter examples would not work against constructs...
well, for starters your counter examples would not work against constructs...Is it just me, or is the sands of time spell (from UM) extremely underpowered? It's a level 3 spell and all it does is advance a target to the next age category. All that does is give it a -1 penalty to its physical ability scores (or worsens an older target's ability score penalty from age by 1). Alternatively, you can do 3d6 + 1/level damage to a construct, object or undead creature.
That seems to me to be a very weak effect for a level 3 single target spell, especially when it requires a touch. Neither the debuff nor the damage are impressive at all. Compare this to 2nd level touch spells like touch of idiocy or ghoul touch, for example. Those spells have much nastier effects and are a full level lower.
Am I missing something, or is this spell just really weak?
Neither would Sands. Against opponents that sands would work on the ghoul touch would be useful on most of those.
well, for starters your counter examples would not work against constructs...
Yes, but if I want to damage constructs there are far better options at that level and the previous level. Heck, even magic missile will often do similar damage to this spell and its 1st level, and at range!
Neither would Sands. Against opponents that sands would work on the ghoul touch would be useful on most of those.
Alternatively, you can do 3d6 + 1/level damage to a construct, object or undead creature. ?
Neither would Sands. Against opponents that sands would work on the ghoul touch would be useful on most of those.Alternatively, you can do 3d6 + 1/level damage to a construct, object or undead creature. ?
also: 2 other things.
1) its necromancy, and not evil descriptor yet does damage. a perk for those wishing to play a white necromancer.
2) its SR-no, which means it WILL effect magic immune golems.
This is what i get for asking my resident rules lawyer instead of looking something up in that case yeah its pretty damn useful.
2) its SR-no, which means it WILL effect magic immune golems.
It doesn't allow a saving throw, but it does allow spell resistance, so you can't use it against golems.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spells/sandsOfTime.html#sa nds-of-timeFor there to be good spell, there have to be not as good spells.
According to who? What law is written in the cosmos that there must be bad spells? Why can't all spells be good and useful? When I design spells, I don't go "oh, I need to make a useless spell now, to balance the good ones!"
Since your referencing ultimate magic, they have an entire section on designing spells. Essentially sands of time is paying a premium for having multiple different effects and for not giving a saving throw.
Even with those advantages, I wouldn't put it above 2nd level. Its effects are weaker than any of the 2nd level debuffs (glitterdust, blindness/deafness, ghoul touch, touch of idiocy, hideous laughter, etc).
nice catch, i didn't look at that part of the spell. so it wouldn't work on true golems.
Although, if you threw this on the venerable age big bad wizard(that's the last age category right?) would he... die from old age?
How does this spell affect Dragons? Getting horrible ideas about a cult making a dragon breeding farm and using this to speed up their growth.
The effects of age categories are cumulative making this spell more effective against those already in middle age or old age.
How does this spell affect Dragons? Getting horrible ideas about a cult making a dragon breeding farm and using this to speed up their growth.
From the spell: "...does not gain the bonuses for that category."
So, I guess it does nothing (depending on whether you consider size increases bonuses?).
Edit: Actually, I don't think that - RAW - Dragon age categories are the same as age categories. So I don't think this spell would affect dragons.
It also says it provides none of the bonuses of age. So even if it does work on dragons, they don't get anything.
Okay, no fast-aging of dragons. Sadly.
S-O's question remains, though.
What if the target already is in its highest age category, so there is none to advance to?
While that would certainly make the spell count as evil and get it banned in a 5km safety zone around every retirement home in the world, and I don't think a 3rd lvl spell without saving throw should be an auto-kill against old people (which would immediately bump that spell from under- to overpowered), the visuals of that could be nice.
I imagine something like the scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where Donovan drinks out of the wrong grail... ;)
Its a design concept. And its prevalent throughout all gaming. Particularly in a system that updates itself regularly.
I, for one, would never accuse the author of this spell of making a bad spell on purpose. Sometimes a spell doesn't turn out to be as good as you think, or turns out to be more powerful than you expect. Systems that update themselves regularly do so to fix these kinds of errors, precisly because they are undesirable!
If you design an item that is better widget than the baseline widget, then the baseline widget becomes the bad item. If you design the widget worse than the baseline the new widget is the bad widget. Unless the widgets are identical there is going to be a better and worse widget.
You are forgetting the option of making an item that is balanced with the baseline item, being neither superior nor inferior to it without being identical. Such balance is what people should strive for every time they design a new item, spell, feat, etc. You are suggesting that people should design inferior things on purpose, and that doing so is actually a good thing. Making crappy spells is just as bad as making overpowered ones, as they both result in the same thing - cookie cutter, "one true builds."
Honestly, read the designing spells section in Ultimate Magic. Its fairly well written. And covers this.
I have read it, thank you. I certainly don't recall it ever saying that you should design sub-par spells on purpose. What it did say is that you should first figure out its approximate level based on its overall power, and then compare it to other spells of that level to make sure it's neither too powerful nor too weak (which is exactly how I concluded that this spell is underpowered, by comparing it to other 3rd level and even 2nd level spells and finding it wanting).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one seemed to mention that the fact that you're using magic to prematurely age a creature is incredibly flavorful.
No one seemed to mention that the fact that you're using magic to prematurely age a creature is incredibly flavorful.
I like the flavor of the spell a lot, but I wish it could also cause someone to die from old age (perhaps with a saving throw against a low DC). Of course, I can just create a higher-level version of it for that purpose :)
No one seemed to mention that the fact that you're using magic to prematurely age a creature is incredibly flavorful.I like the flavor of the spell a lot, but I wish it could also cause someone to die from old age (perhaps with a saving throw against a low DC). Of course, I can just create a higher-level version of it for that purpose :)
Indeed you could! I myself have made a slew of spells and an aging subschool of Necromancy for my campaigns :-P.
I'm not seeing any evidence that this spell wouldn't just cull old folk.
The target goes to the next age category. It doesn't say it just gets the penalties, it goes to the age category. If the next one is death, it dies.
This one caveat is what redeems this spell in my opinion. The fact that you could use it against objects (ie screw this lock turn it to dust) and is a decent, irreducible touch attack against undead gives it some versatility.
The target goes to the next age category. It doesn't say it just gets the penalties, it goes to the age category. If the next one is death, it dies.
Death isn't an age category, though :)
Not everything in every book has to be exceedingly useful to adventurers. Sometimes things can just be cool without actually being powerful. I can imagine a witch going around cursing people and turning them old before their time. Maybe with a specialized mass version of this spell.
That said on the construct topic, this spell specifically gives a description of what happens if it is cast on a construct. That's a more specific rule than the construct's immunity to magic, and more specific rules take precedence over general rules.
If this spell were permanent, I would feel very differently about it. It would at least have some interesting roleplaying applications, even if it isn't the best thing to use in combat. Both blindness/deafness and bestow curse are permanent, and those are much nastier effects than sands of time.
Really. How long do you wait for these fixes? The article reference Cone of Cold as a benchmark for weak 5th level spell. They seem to be aware its a weak spell (ie there are better 5th level spells). Its been out for more than a decade. It went from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder. Where is the update? I recommend you don't hold your breath.Expansionist games like D&D/Pathfinder. Tend to leave something alone once its published. If they decide to fix something its almost always because it is too powerful and they bring it down into line. It is rare for them to go back into old content and update it to make it better short of reprinting an entire book (ie going from 3.0 to 3.5 or 3.5 to pathfinder).
I'm not going to hold my breath, because you're missing my point. Sometimes people don't get it right the first time when they design something new, that's what errata is for. Sometimes things get fixed with errata or new editions, sometimes they don't. My point is that they should be fixed when possible, not that they necessarily will be.
No, I'm not saying they design bad spells on purpose. I say you can't design perfectly balanced spells. I say you have X items, and they are different, one is going to be considered better/worse than the others, even if they are very close to each other in effect.
Nothing is going to be perfect, but some things are much closer than others. Balance is an ideal we should strive for even if we won't always achieve it. That said, I don't complain about spells that are pretty close to the mark, only those that seem to be drastically out of balance with those of their level.
Well, is it possible to stack this effect? The text seems ambiguous about that. If it was possible, maybe this spell would turn from underpowered to overpowered?