I know that Haste has been a buffer staple for years, but with the new versions of it found in Pathfinder, things might be changing.
Haste or Slow?
Discuss.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Haste. It always works. Slow requires a save.
Haste. It always works. Slow requires a save.
This!
PS: I liked your other avatar much better, wraith. This one's disturbing...
Haste. It always works. Slow requires a save.
While this point is beyond debate, I think people often overlook just how crippling limiting a foe to a single action can be. Move but can't attack. Attack but never full attack. Can't charge. Can't perform full round actions. The penalties - which are too low in my opinion - are completely secodnary compared to that, and it IS a Will save which has the best chance of getting through normally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that Haste has been a buffer staple for years, but with the new versions of it found in Pathfinder, things might be changing.
Haste or Slow?
Discuss.
It's situational.
Haste is assuredly always going to land, as it targets friendlies. When you get it, it affects up to 5 people, which is a full party. As your level increases, haste becomes more useful if you have cohorts, companions, and minions. You can haste your entire group plus undead minions, animal companions, and so forth within a few levels. It however loses a lot of its appeal when nobody has minions, and is very underwhelming for spellcasters.
Meanwhile, slow is pretty debilitating for almost anyone, but won't assuredly land. It targets will saves, making it ideal for grouped brutes. Despite being resist-able, it's more powerful in its effects, as the penalties are far worse than the bonuses haste grants. While haste can add +1 attack, slow can remove all but 1, completely destroying the attack routines of monsters, martials, dual-wielders, eidolons, and so forth. It terms of debuff spells, it is king in terms of severity. The fact it is selective AoE and a will save that isn't mind-affecting is icing on the cake.
In some situations, Haste will be superior. In some situations, Slow clearly wins encounters. My suggestion is prepare both.
EDIT: Lincoln Hills makes another good point. As a save-based spell, slow really needs to be self-cast, while haste is useful regardless of source (self, scroll, wand, other), as the save DC is meaningless.
Both spells are power multipliers or dividers. The more targets you can affect with them, the more powerful it will be.
Haste of course. If some enemies are added to the fight later, Slow is useless for them. Haste still works though, since its on your allies, not on your enemies.
Depends on the opponent really against spellcasters or foes with special attacks like breath weapons or the likes slow is not that much of a help.Against melee opponents or archers slow is auto-win if get through with it.
Charge is a full round action
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charge is a full round action
That can be used as a standard action if you are incapable of taking a full-round action, but in such case you can only move up to your speed, not twice your speed. This is why zombies who are permanently staggered may charge. In fact, charging is the only way for them to move and attack in the same round.
You should probably read the text he quoted. You are specifically allowed to charge if you only have a standard action (as is the case with slow, or zombies specifically). You can just only charge up to your base movement, not double
Heven´t seen that rule before.I thought zombies get a special exception.That means if a character or monster can pounce and is staggered or slowed he can still move and full attack.Seems to me that this rule kind of defeats the point of both effects.
Heven´t seen that rule before.I thought zombies get a special exception.That means if a character or monster can pounce and is staggered or slowed he can still move and full attack.Seems to me that this rule kind of defeats the point of both effects.
Not quite. The ability to use charge as a standard action is an aspect of charging, not full-round actions in general.
Likewise, you may begin a full-round action during your turn and finish it on your next turn, but with a minor exception to casting certain spells, it's still a major drawback, as you have to split your action over two rounds.
For example...
A slowed archer with 6 attacks per round (4 from BAB, 1 from rapid shot, 1 from a speed bow) could begin a full-attack on round 1, making a single shot, and on his next turn finish his full-attack with another standard action, getting the 5 additional attacks he would have made on the previous round.
If he wasn't slowed, he would have been pulling 12 attacks over 2 rounds instead of 6 attacks.
In the case of melee opponents, they can still full-attack using in this way, but closing into combat and then full-attacking becomes more difficult. If you can't hold your foe in combat with you via AoOs, then your foe can just walk away from you before you get the rest of your attacks in.
Errata is not needed.
|
Pounce: When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability). Format: pounce; Location: Special Attacks.
Pounce allows you to make a specific full round action (full attack), as part of a charge. Slow prevents you from making any full round actions so no pounce on slow.
Likewise, you may begin a full-round action during your turn and finish it on your next turn, but with a minor exception to casting certain spells, it's still a major drawback, as you have to split your action over two rounds.
For example...
A slowed archer with 6 attacks per round (4 from BAB, 1 from rapid shot, 1 from a speed bow) could begin a full-attack on round 1, making a single shot, and on his next turn finish his full-attack with another standard action, getting the 5 additional attacks he would have made on the previous round.
Can you explain this further? Citing also helps... I never have seen this before.
Can you explain this further? Citing also helps... I never have seen this before.Likewise, you may begin a full-round action during your turn and finish it on your next turn, but with a minor exception to casting certain spells, it's still a major drawback, as you have to split your action over two rounds.
For example...
A slowed archer with 6 attacks per round (4 from BAB, 1 from rapid shot, 1 from a speed bow) could begin a full-attack on round 1, making a single shot, and on his next turn finish his full-attack with another standard action, getting the 5 additional attacks he would have made on the previous round.
Actually I'm wrong. >.>
Normally you can use a standard-action to start and complete a full-round action. However, it seems that full-attacks are specifically barred from being began and ended in this way. Bummer.
Start/Complete Full-Round Action: The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.
So while it would work as noted above, if you could do so with full-attacks, you apparently cannot. Ouch, that makes slow even meaner than I thought it was (and I thought it was pretty harsh already).
In either case, there's no reason for errata for the Charge action, because the charge action is subject to its own special rules. I am saddened to see that I was mistaken on the full-attack thing though.
|
|
As for the general haste versus slow, it totally depends on the enemy and your allies. If you have an enemy that does one massive attack per round, slow isn't going to affect him much. If your enemy is deinonychus with 5+ small attacks per round... it's brutal. Similarly, Haste helps your two handed weapon guy more than it does the monk or the two weapon fighting guy with a ton of attacks per round.
Also, the more friendlies or enemies you can hit with either spell the better. Hitting a pack of six deinonychus with slow is likely much more affective than hitting your parties one monk with haste.
Haste. It always works. Slow requires a save.This!
PS: I liked your other avatar much better, wraith. This one's disturbing...
Then I have improved. :)
I am just trying it out. I had the other one for a while, and since this one is a wraith, and also undead like the other one, the name still fits.
If you use slow so much it becomes an I win button stuff with vital strike might start showing up. I think it is good for a party to have access to both.
|
I basically agree with the consensus here: Which one is better is highly situational. Fighting zombies? Useless. Fighting a giant octopus? Amazing. Goes from 9 natural attacks to 1 and will is its lowest save.
Overall, taking either one will do your group a huge load of good in the long run, so do whichever you like more.
Of course, both is potentially an option. If you have to put one of them to an item, though, put Haste to the item as you'll need the higher save DC for slow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can say that my weak willed frightened caster who would be otherwise pointless, is beloved by my party because of these two spells used together with a quicken rod.
So would you say haste is still better is we only have one fighter in the party and two wizards? The haste is only going to really help the fighter. Where as if I prepare slow instated I might come across two or more enemies at the same time.
Heh. I always have my villans prep slow just so I can cast it after they do haste and auto-dispel with no save. They finally started getting the hint and don't try to haste for every single fight.
Master Arminas
Heh. I always have my villans prep slow just so I can cast it after they do haste and auto-dispel with no save. They finally started getting the hint and don't try to haste for every single fight.
Master Arminas
But if they didn't buff with haste, then they would have been reamed by slow. Seems like more of a reason to keep casting haste, since it protects you from slow.
Also, where does it say that it auto-dispels it without a save? My memory fails me. :\
PRD Page 288: Haste dispels and counters slow.
PRD Page 348: Slow counters and dispels haste.
To my understanding it is the counters and dispels part that makes it an auto-dispel either way.
I.e., a party wizard casts haste; a BBEG casts slow. The party doesn't get to save and the haste is automatically dispelled. So is the slow. Both spells cancel each other out--to the best of my understanding.
Now, if they had not had haste up, then slow would have taken effect normally, allowing its save as listed. And if anyone in the party was effected, the wizard could have cast haste to remove the slow effect.
Master Arminas
PRD Page 288: Haste dispels and counters slow.
PRD Page 348: Slow counters and dispels haste.To my understanding it is the counters and dispels part that makes it an auto-dispel either way.
I.e., a party wizard casts haste; a BBEG casts slow. The party doesn't get to save and the haste is automatically dispelled. So is the slow. Both spells cancel each other out--to the best of my understanding.
Now, if they had not had haste up, then slow would have taken effect normally, allowing its save as listed. And if anyone in the party was effected, the wizard could have cast haste to remove the slow effect.
Master Arminas
Hmm, I would have figured that the spell would actually have to land. However, either way, that still makes Haste and Slow once again critical to success, since they are not only great buffs/debuffs, but apparently the easiest way to cancel the effects of either. :o
Indeed, and my players certainly still retained the option. But they didn't automatically cast haste the first round of every fight anymore.
Master Arminas
Would it be redundant to say haste at this point?
Haste. It always works. Slow requires a save.This!
PS: I liked your other avatar much better, wraith. This one's disturbing...
oh sh-- I didn't even realize that was him!
no way, this new avatar is awesome. 3 thumbs up!
as to the OP:
It depends! Slow tends to hurt others more than haste helps you. If an opponent has more than 2 attacks, it just absolutely demolishes him.
The fact that Haste always works is not to be underestimated. However, other than the increased movement which is always nice, the main benefit (extra attack) will likely only be taken advantage of by half the group. Whereas with Slow you can cherry pick your targets based on their perceived threat and/or ability to save.
Honestly? It's a toss-up for me.
Haste. It always works. Slow requires a save.This!
PS: I liked your other avatar much better, wraith. This one's disturbing...
oh sh-- I didn't even realize that was him!
no way, this new avatar is awesome. 3 thumbs up!
Thanks :)
As a GM: limiting PC actions in any way (full round to standard, standard to just move, etc) is a huge bonus -- so slow is clearly the winner. PCs are much more willing to waste actions to remove slow than to dispel haste. Adding extra attacks to a group of monsters can be quite powerful, especially if a monster has a gigantic, massive single attack. But the attack has to be so big that 2 attacks >>> (I/G) Vital Strike. I once had a colossal animated pipe organ (animated object) that dealt MASSIVE slam damage. The organ would gain a haste effect if the all the PCs weren't in melee range of it, and that haste effect HURT.
As a player: increasing your party's actions is always a win: so haste is the clear winner most of the time. The general exception is when a creature has a ridiculous full attack routine (like a hasted colossal pipe organ). If you're in a situation where you can't blast down an enemy before it can start killing your teammates, slow is pretty good.
Slow has to bypass SR's and saves, and monster at higher levels have good saves,especially against low level spells. Haste stays useful from levels 1 to 20 without depending on heighten spell, or bad rolls by the GM. Even the lowly babau has dispel magic. I would think longevity of the spell is a factor into the question.
Wraithstrike makes a good point. It's also worth mentioning that haste is useful even when cast from scrolls or wands while slow is pretty limited due to low save DCs.
I had a player who invested in a 5/day spell-trigger item of haste. Essentially he could pop 5 rounds of haste up to five times per day. It served the party quite well. Good investment.
|
My party are forever using haste, it's the summoner's spell of choice as she can buff everyone in the party and her eidolon in one go but I have to say I'm a fan of slow. Despite it's requiring failed saves to take effect I do find it causes mayhem in a fast moving party especially when you're lobbing it at flanking types like rogues and rangers.
I'd agree that the spell would have to land. The counters part I always took to be a specific reference to countering a spell that is being cast. You can counter haste with slow and slow with haste. You could argue the same as dispel counters spells or dispels a spell. There should still be some form of caster check or save involved.
Doesn't seem right that a level 20 BBEG can hit your party with slow and your level 5 wizard dispels it with a haste.
I would say it counters and dispels without save. Dispel magic does not allow saves, you have to roll. IMO you target the spell, not the subjects, thus also no SR. Example:
- BBEG casts slow, you are prepared and can either counter with slow or haste (both work)- You have haste on you. BBEG casts slow -> it "dispels" -> no check here required, automatically removed
Good side: If you have haste on you, there is no save required for the slow since it will first simply remove the haste, so BBEG would have to cast twice to affect you.
And yes, that even makes always having haste on more important :-)
so at high levels, a scroll of slow's main use is dispelling enemy haste, rather than actually slowing the enemy? seems reasonable.
i'm in the haste camp myself, as it's just that good.
Same here. I'm convinced.
Haste, definitely. It's just such a strong spell. And I disagree that Slow is better when you first get it. When you first get level 3 spells, level 5-6, even the Fighter (barring TWF or something) only has one attack or is just getting his 2nd attack and thus at such a low bonus it seldom hits. So haste is basically doubling your damage output, while as at level 20 it's probably more like +30% damage output, and against weaker foes, gives you a chance of disposing twice as many each round.
That seems like a pretty dramatic increase in power to me.
Haste. No save needed.