| 12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So here we have two spells that are extremely similar in build (all the same spell types, durations, # of creatures, etc).
Both of the earlier spells at 1st level are only 1 round duration as well.
However, the Greater Forbid Action spell does not have the clause that they may break free every round, which kicks it into 3.5e mode for power.
Just curious if this seems like a typo that needs errata.
Perhaps an extra line at the end saying: "At the start of each affected creature's turn after the first, it gets another Will save to attempt to break free from the spell."
So here we have two spells that are extremely similar in build (all the same spell types, durations, # of creatures, etc).
Both of the earlier spells at 1st level are only 1 round duration as well.However, the Greater Forbid Action spell does not have the clause that they may break free every round, which kicks it into 3.5e mode for power.
It could be a copy/paste error, as the text of Greater Forbid Action doesn't specify that it continues.
Also, Forbid Action is usually less powerful than Command, so maybe it needs fewer saves?
"Halt and do nothing" is far worse for the creature affected than "Don't Attack."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've decided to seek knowledge through necromancy by raising this thread from the dead. Our party Inquisitor used Greater Forbid Action last night, and it seemed pretty brutal. I'll grant that 5th level spells are often pretty brutal, but as the OP mentioned, Greater Command offers a new saving throw each round. This seems pretty reasonable to me, and I wonder if Greater Forbid Action should or even was supposed to match Greater Command. The lower level Command and Forbid Action spells are very similar, so the difference in the higher level versions stands out a bit.
Melee focused monsters forbidden to Move can be blown apart from a safe distance. I'd think that being forbidden to Attack for 13 rounds would end up as a death sentence for a lot of creatures even if they had ranged attacks and spells. As an aside, the Inquisitor has been loading his spell storing weapon with Castigate, and I notice that both Castigate and Mass Castigate also offer a new saving throw each round. Once again this seems pretty reasonable to me.
I guess that being very fast or having summoning or dimensional travel abilities could get you out of many forbidden action jams, but there are a lot of foes who won't have those sorts of abilities, and only summoning would let you try to actually win the combat rather than just get away alive. That said, there are some other very strong spells like Fear in the game, so maybe the Greater Forbid Action spell works exactly as intended. I just thought it might be worth checking since it seems a bit off somehow.
It's a weird one.
Command is a little more devastating in its effects (Halt stops you from doing ANYTHING, Approach makes you provoke AoO, etc).
But there are possibilities with Forbid Action that can basically trivialize an encounter. And when you conflate that to 10+ rounds, it's kind of insane.
I believe the catalyst to my posting this was an encounter with giants that I basically stopped dead with this spell. DM basically said "Uh, okay.. well, let's just hand-waive the rest of this encounter, you win".
I don't know the best fix for this, that doesn't make someone just jump to Greater Command and use the Halt option.
Perhaps something like 2 rounds automatic (after the first failed save), and then additional rounds (1 round / 2 caster levels) with a save.
That, or maybe make it a 1 round casting time, like summoning.
Doesn't sound like it needs fixing. It's on par for a fifth level spell. It isn't like the giants couldn't do something else, like run away until the spell wears off in a minute or so. I don't know why your GM decided to shut down the encounter at that point.
@Kaisoku - Oddly enough, the encounter where I saw this used also involved giants. If somebody jumps to Greater Command that's actually better IMO since the monsters (or PCs for that matter) get a new save each round. If multiple monsters fail the save for multiple rounds that's just how things go. As is it seems kind of easy to lock down melee monsters for ranged execution. Maybe it is just a matter of taste...
@blaphers - The giants could run away if you forbid them to Attack. If you forbid them to Move they wouldn't have much choice but to toss whatever rocks they have handy and then stand there being killed for 13 rounds. Contrast this to Greater Command, where you can force them to do something particularly stupid but they get a new chance to break free each round.
@Corlindale - The fact that Forbid Action seems worse than Command but Greater Forbid Action seems potentially much more devastating than Greater Command is part of what prompted me to post.
I don't think Greater Teleport would help since the wording of the Forbid Action spell is actually pretty tightly written:
"Move: The target can take no act that would cause it to end up in a different location. The target does not resist being moved by others (and thus can be picked up or dragged, or can float along on a raft), but does not consciously attempt to move (including not directing a mount to move)."
I think that a devil using Greater Teleport would clearly "cause it to end up in a different location". Devils and demons are pretty well positioned against GFA since they can at least try to summon help. I guess one could also argue about whether Magic Circle Against Good would help (at least if the GFA caster was good aligned).
While Kaisoku and I have both seen the spell used on giants it isn't tough to imagine other groups of foes falling to it. If it doesn't have decent ranged attacks you tell it not to Move. If it does you tell it not to Attack. Some stuff with ranged attacks will also have very fast movement or teleport, but some stuff is outright immune to mind-affecting too. Most spells have some stuff they won't work on, but that is sometimes less important than what happens to what it does work on.
Anyhow, I guess my question is becoming less whether GFA is overpowered (which it might be) but why it should be so much better than Greater Command, which it otherwise closely resembles. I guess the answer might be "that's just the way it is", but it doesn't stop me from wondering.
I believe in my situation, movement wasn't as big an issue (we were in a cave or something and we could block the entrance). This is 2 years ago, going off memory.
10+ rounds of no attacking. No bullrushing, overrun, etc. Can't get out. Getting hammered by PCs built for dealing decent damage; we could take one down in a round or two. Main melee DPS was a charging Cavalier, and an Eidolon built for pouncing, so they couldn't even run to lower our damage potential.
Yeah, it was shooting fish in a barrel. DM hand-waived appropriately in our case.
It was a spell I picked because I wanted to test out something different from the normal (this is a couple years ago, when the books had just come out). Hadn't thought through the ramifications (or even noticed no ongoing saves).
Used it with my Oracle. Note, I think I could have done Forbid Move and then Forbid Attack and then watch as they were in a worse situation than Hold Monster.
I think we just switched to Greater Command on my spell list after that until we could get a better handle on the spell (which we never bothered to do for that campaign).
@Kaisoku - Oddly enough, the encounter where I saw this used also involved giants. If somebody jumps to Greater Command that's actually better IMO since the monsters (or PCs for that matter) get a new save each round. If multiple monsters fail the save for multiple rounds that's just how things go. As is it seems kind of easy to lock down melee monsters for ranged execution. Maybe it is just a matter of taste...
@blaphers - The giants could run away if you forbid them to Attack. If you forbid them to Move they wouldn't have much choice but to toss whatever rocks they have handy and then stand there being killed for 13 rounds. Contrast this to Greater Command, where you can force them to do something particularly stupid but they get a new chance to break free each round.
@Corlindale - The fact that Forbid Action seems worse than Command but Greater Forbid Action seems potentially much more devastating than Greater Command is part of what prompted me to post.
If every giant in the group failed their save, well, bully for the 9th-level caster. This still does not seem overpowered. If the giants are smart, they have backup missile weapons or spells. If they aren't, then they die. This ignores situations where the giants have rocks all over the place, which is common for lesser giants on their home turf.
This seems relevant:
Multiple Mental Control Effects
Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.
Kaisoku - The idea of doing 2 Forbids came up in our group as well. At that point the monsters have failed 2 saves, so they should really expect to be in trouble. That said, it truly does sound worse than Hold Monster with the exception that since it is language-dependent
@blaphers - Most giants don’t have any ranged attacks beside rocks. By the time you have GFA those rocks will probably need a 20 to hit most PCs. Anyhow, the spell can be used against stuff other than giants.
An excuse can be made for why just about anything wouldn't be overpowered. I'd think the easiest one here might be, "It doesn't seem much worse than Fear". Honestly it is a little easier to aim than Fear (a smaller AoE where you need to avoid allies) and gives finer control which could be very useful against many monsters. It certainly seems stronger than Greater Command to me, and for whatever reason I think that's really weird.
@Umbral Reaver - I'm not sure that applies if both effects were created by the same caster. I'm not sure if you can be affected by the same spell twice at one time though.
@blaphers - Most giants don’t have any ranged attacks beside rocks. By the time you have GFA those rocks will probably need a 20 to hit most PCs. Anyhow, the spell can be used against stuff other than giants.
Regarding lack of ranged attacks: Not every Not all giants use the base stat blocks with no adjustment at all. They are proficient with all simple weapons, including slings, crossbows, and various thrown weapons. Those with class levels or proficiency feats probably carry other weapons. If the party comes across a group of hill giant goatherders on rubble-free terrain, then yes, the goatherders are likely to be stomped if they can't move. If it's a group of hill giant guards, that's another thing.
Regarding needing a 20: Plenty of 9th level PCs have ACs less than 26, which is what would be required to make a lowly hill giant (CR 7) miss with his rock. A stone giant (CR 8) would have to be fighting AC 31 to need a 20.
Maybe there's another approach: Why shouldn't a 9th-level party consisting of one or more strong ranged attackers and a cleric who speaks giant (or has other means to make himself understood) be able to overcome a group of giants with very good odds using this tactic?
We were playing Kingmaker, and the DM was running it from the book.
Spoilerish...
Going around and GFA:Attack or :Move (or esp. both) would trivialize a great number of the encounters in that campaign. Not a ton of ranged combat encounters. The wyvern encounter (they understand dragon) would have gone very differently if I could have stopped it from moving for 10+ rounds.
Thinking back, it would have neutered a lot of the boss encounters we came across as well, since the goals usually weren't "kill everything" but rather something more specific. And cutting out a pile of enemies or shutting down casting on the solo BBEG caster means we still win the encounter.. so what if they can come back a minute or more later, we still got past the intended obstacle with a single save. Even Slay Living (same level) requires a touch attack. That flying caster would have been hard for me to nail with that spell instead.
Non-spoilerish version:
Killing everything is not always the entire goal. This spell makes it so that with 1 save, you've cut out a group of obstacles for a minute or more.
As I said, I don't know exactly what I'd do to make it better, since it feels a little weak with just tacking on a save every round. And I understand it's not a complete lock down, so creatures can still try and do "something", so it's not always the end of the world.
But it still feels like it is breaking something without having the ongoing save. It's like adding Dex to damage. Not always overpowered in every situation, but doing that gives massive weight to that one ability score, and it feels too much.
Blaphers’ point about the spell being language-dependent is a good one as this should help provide some limits or at least the requirement to invest some skill ranks. Our party has a wand of Tongues, but a fair number of tough melee foes like purple worms don't speak a language. Language-dependent is also a limitation on Greater Command though.
I apologize that my math for the rock attacks seemed so off, but I was thinking of the spell for a 13th level Inquisitor rather than a 9th level Cleric. AC can go up quite a bit in those 4 levels, as our party’s certainly has. That said, the giants are far less dangerous throwing rocks than making melee attacks, especially if PCs with lower ACs use Total Defense and or there’s anything to take cover behind.
There are also many monsters with ranged capabilities even more feeble than giants. Looking around CR8-13 I can spot a bunch of fairly likely victims. I’d say that over half of the outsiders could be in trouble, for instance. The fact Greater Forbid Action can stop dimensional travel for multiple creatures for a round per level seems pretty impressive to me.
Adding a save each round would probably make Greater Forbid Action worse than Greater Command to about the same extent that Forbid Action is worse than Command. That seems OK to me though honestly I wasn't so much posting to debate the merits of potential fixes as to verify that the omission of the additional saving throws wasn't just an error (as kaisoku originally wondered).
I find it tough to resist discussing this stuff though. With some time off work, my girlfriend sick, and all my games this week canceled I have more time than usual to sit around on the Internet wasting my time and possibly yours.
We were playing Kingmaker, and the DM was running it from the book.
Spoilerish...
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, I've heard of a lot of problems with Kingmaker encounters. As fun as the adventure path is, it's a bit of a pushover compared to the more hardcore APs. 15 minute, single-combat adventuring days are the usual complaint I hear, but I remember one poster here lamenting that
You don't cut out a group of obstacles with one save--every individual gets a save, and they can still act otherwise unless you layer on more of the same next round. Frankly, I'd rather have reach bestow curse, as it can effectively cut a single target out of the fight in the manner of my choice and works against a greater variety of targets. Plus it's one level lower, so I can bump it up with another metamagic feat. And it's permanent.
Outsiders at least have SR (sometimes) on top of their initial save, and they usually have Will as one of their good saves. A lot of things can stop dimensional travel by 9th level.
It really doesn't bother me that a level 5 spell can Will-save-or-sorta-die on a group; there are too many ways it won't work for me to complain when it does.
You’re right that there are plenty of ways for Forbid Action to fail. The Inquisitor has a judgement which gives +5 to overcome SR though, so SR isn’t a big obstacle here. If he invested in the spell penetration feats the check would be literally an automatic success against almost every creature in our general CR range.
A creature making the saving throw is more likely, but you don't have to affect the whole group for the spell to become "save or lose" on some members of that group. Even with just a 30-50% chance to affect one monster it becomes almost a "sure thing" that you'll get one if you target 2-3.
Ironically, I've always been a little disappointed with Bestow Curse. Don’t get me wrong, it is a pretty solid spell, I just find that I usually have something better to do, like:
- Evil Eye - The -4 on attacks, saves, or AC is bigger than the -3 which giving somebody -6 on an ability score would impose.
- Dirge of Doom - The -2 to attacks and saves becomes a -4 when I hit the enemy with my Cruel weapon
- Greater Forbid Action - I haven’t actually used this one myself yet, but instead of the enemy losing half his actions if he fails the save he loses all actions of a certain type. The good news is that if he makes the save his buddies might still fail. The great news is that 2 or more of them could fail.
I really thought my Witch was going to love Bestow Curse, but after a few things made the saving throw I realized I could spend my actions a lot better on seemingly silly stuff like Dazing Lightning Bolt, the bane of big melee monsters (Whether Dazing Spell itself is broken is probably a topic for another thread)
EDIT: I just glanced at Bestow Curse and noticed it can give a -4 penalty on attacks or saves just like Evil Eye. If you have Cackle then Evil Eye is still a lot more consistent. I guess combining them for a -8 would be really devastating...duly noted...
Note that bestow curse is not limited to the listed effects, though PFS probably disagrees. Loads of fun. It does synergies well with all those lovely abilities you mentioned.
I see all of these as tools in an arsenal of nullification. GBA is very good in some situations, I won't deny it, but I wouldn't call it a must-have, which is my usual first criteria for OP candidacy.
Yeah, I have informed my girlfriend of the -4 nameless penalties from Bestow Curse, and I'm sure we'll see it being delivered via Spectral Hand next session.
I still think GFA is a much stronger choice than you seem to. That might be based partially on which monsters we expect to face. We already use a lot of debuffs, so I'd expect to see a lot of stuff standing around waiting for death. Our melee tank (my PC) is pretty effective, so just keeping monsters away from the other PCs is actually quite powerful.
Sounds like you have a very efficient party, and GFA is a great fit for your play style. I usually play in parties with only one primary or 3/4 caster, so it doesn't work quite as well. I don't get to see teamwork spellcasting as much as I'd like. So I look for spells that work reliably out of the box rather than combos. GFA would work very well even then, but not to the same awe-inspiring levels as single-round curse+GFA, Evil Eye+GFA, or Misfortune+GFA. Oh well, there's always prayer+GFA.