| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As you said Euphoric tranquility requires a melee touch attack so its not that terrible, it actually reminds me of 3,5 Irresistable Dance. All in all a very powerful spell, borderline broken.
Regarding Cold ice strike, IMO damage dealing spells like fireball and cone of cold aren't worth it. Cold ice strike is a good spell but nothing more. Dealing 15d6 damage with a 6th level slot as a swift action at level 15 (how much damage does a fighter deal at that level?) is certainly nice but not broken.
I agree with your assessment on all but one of the spells. Euphoric Tranquillity should be fine - It is an 8th level spell (6th for bards) which is entirely defeated by a first level spell - Protection from Evil/Good/Chaos/Law.
|
Some thoughts:
Euphoric Tranquility: Does seem to be one that slipped through the cracks. Seems to me to have been intended as an ultimate form of interrogation magic, built in with some protection for the caster/party should things turn ugly. If you look at it as a spell cast on a hostile target midcombat- yep it's stupid.
Any reason Litany of Righteousness is exempt from the normal restriction on stacking multipliers? I don't see why it would be.. hence smite with the spell is x3. x4 total multiplier vs dragons/devils/etc. Sure it's a ton of damage, but there's doubtlessly other ways to deal similar damage.
Litany of Vengeance: the extra damage and type isn't really amazing. Good, sure, but not broken. Especially considering it's a 4th level paladin spell. The duration is definately mis-worded, and probably in need of a faq/erratum. Not exactly the same thing as an insanely overpowered spell :D
Euphoric tranquility
I disagree here, this is an 8th level spell, were in the big leagues now. It requires a touch attack and despite what many people say in hypothetical, my experience is that touch range spells usually end badly, the problem isn't landing the touch, its dealing with the subsequent backhand. There are some trick to get around this, but its still part of the spell. It allows SR, any creature at that level that doesn't have SR has a lot more to be worried about than this spell. They get a save to suppress the spell for one round if attacked, that's long enough for most enemies to escape.
Litany of righteousness
Duration of one round, its good, but really isn't that big of a deal and giving up a swift action as a paladin is a big deal. With smite already being pretty darn good, I can see how some people might not like this spell, but I don't see a problem.
Cold ice strike
Line based evocations have proven underwhemling in my games, plus a 6th level spell slot. You have energy resistance/immunity to deal with, reflex for half not to mention how many enemies are going to have evasion and improved, and SR. Swift action is about its only saving grace and not anything game breaking.
Litany of vengeance
This one probably needed to be play-tested a bit more and worded more carefully. There should be a requisite alignment indicator in the spell (like with the litany of righteousness), I am not really sure what the duration of instantaneous entails, and I am not sure why it is allowing all attacks against the target a bonus. Once again it allows SR and gives up a swift action, but I agree that this one needs some work.
I agree with your assessment on all but one of the spells. Euphoric Tranquillity should be fine - It is an 8th level spell (6th for bards) which is entirely defeated by a first level spell - Protection from Evil/Good/Chaos/Law.
The protection from X anti-control effect has no effect against a neutral spellcaster.
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target. This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target. This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.
|
|
I had a post written up along the lines of Pipdreamsam, but the board ate it. I mirror his/her sentiments. The only one which might be problematic is Litany of Vengance, but it isn't permanent. Any mispelling magic should be able to get rid of it and if you're high enough level to get stuck with it, you can take care of it just as easily as Mummy Rot.
I think these spells are fine and add a bit of extra coolness to the half-casting classes. Spellcasting is almost worthless for these classes compared to the level you get them, plus the number of daily slots are so few it will hardly make a difference. Also, the liturgies are conditional. If it is evil, a paladin should be able to tear it a new one.
This one probably needed to be play-tested a bit more and worded more carefully. There should be a requisite alignment indicator in the spell (like with the litany of righteousness), I am not really sure what the duration of instantaneous entails, and I am not sure why it is allowing all attacks against the target a bonus. Once again it allows SR and gives up a swift action, but I agree that this one needs some work.
This is really not a problem. It's just a wording issue in the detailed text of the spell. But if you look up the spell in the index - the summary text clearly states that " Allies attacking the target of the spell gain a +5 bonus on damage rolls for 1 round."
+5 to damage rolls for 1 round? At that caster level? Have at it, I say.
Paizo has done a good job playtesting stuff mostly so far but there are some balance offenders lurking out there, I'm making this thread to get a discussion going and alert people that these spells are not balanced and can cause problems
if you know of other examples like these post em up
1. Euphoric Tranquility - http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/euphoric-tranquility
So, no save and they can't attack or cast spells for at least 16 rounds, AND they are helpful, so diplomacy is outdated. This one is pretty high level but it's straight up broken, touch required or not...there are a lot opponents at high level which are not hard to touch.
Um... Its an 8th level spell. Eight...At that same level, there is a touch spell that can make you dance endlessly or trap someones soul...if you are talking about balance in high level spells, you have a strange idea of what balance means.
2. Litany of righteousness - http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/l/litany-of-righteousness
Hey paladins weren't powerful enough smiting evil already, amirite? Swift action no save...didn't the designers learn from 3.5 leap attack etc? Giving stackable damage multipliers is a bad idea. You can make a 20th level paladin archer with this spell deal well over 1000 damage with a single full attack.
Paladins are good at fighting evil...giant surprise there. And really who cares how much damage a paladin can do at 20th level, the wizard already defeated the thing before the paladin was within visual range, so why does it matter?
Cold Ice Strike - http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/cold-ice-strike
This was apparently nerfed from a 60 foot cone to a 30 foot line but that doesn't really address the problem, dealing 15d6 cold damage in an area at range with a swift action with a 6th level slot is a bit imbalanced if not outright broken. Also, this doesn't fit the general cleric list at all. Compare it to a quickened lightning bolt, that requires another feat and takes a 7th level slot...
Except that evocation and damage are already obsolete to a primary caster at that level, so giving it a boost isnt the worst thing in the world. This one you could search for there was a fair amount of discussion on it, but to me, honestly, I dont care, because damage is the least effective way for a caster who can cast 6th level spells to defeat things. So having a spell like that that is better, isnt an issue.
3. Litany of Vengeance - http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/l/litany-of-vengeance
So, +5 damage for everyone that hits, swift action, again no save. That's bad enough, but the duration is "instantaneous", by RAW then, the target takes +5 damage....forever? So as a DM, I hit a pc with this, they take +5 damage on every attack that hits them for the duration of the campaign?
Probably should have a duration, but in theory the party member could just have another litany spell cast on them (say litaney of defense) to end it, so it doesnt HAVE to be forever.
As for its effect, it comes into play at 13th level. It is essentially a party buff. Giving the party +5 damage to one target as a swift action at 13th level, can't a bard do better?[hint: they can]
well I'll let this post die, because I think this board basically suffers from a problem of"one-upsmanship" so I'm not going to try to do that because I think I've made my points. I think there is some healthy discussion going on here but also a lot of equivocating and relativism which detracts from the fact that in a real play situation these spells are in a real sense perhaps unbalanced.
For my campaign, we'll probably make a "gentleman's agreement" not to use them. Good gaming!
Actually your points were shown to be false and your concerns were unfounded. If that's "one-upsmanship", why post in the first place?
Euphoric Tranquility: High level mind-affecting spells suck (so many immunities...), and it's melee touch. Doesn't bother me. I'd take it off the Cleric/Oracle list and add it to the Witch list, but other than that, it's fine.
Litany of Righteousness: It's completely fine. My personaly opinion is it should be reduced effect against evil creatures and much stronger effect (dazzled, seriously?) against evil subtype enemies. *shrug* Paladins should be amazing at crushing evil.
Cold Ice Strike: Nothing wrong with it, IMO. Since Qingong Monk gets it, back before the eratta I was hoping the nerf would be that the missing components would include an expensive M component and it'd remain a cone...oh well. I would remove it from Cleric/Oracle, though, they have no business getting such a pure blast spell, and certainly not at the same level as sorc/wiz.
Litany of Vengeance: Duration i definitely borked, instantaneous is dumb. The actual mechanical benefit is actually pretty unimpressive for a high level spell effect. So, just needs duration fixed. Round/level, heck even hour/level, 24 hours, or permanent would be fine, since you can only have one litany on you at a time (and I assume break enchantment or something like that can remove them?). Just not instantaneous.
1) Paladins are good at fighting evil, and are (arguably) already overpowered. Therefore, another 1-2 spells which make them even stronger against evil shouldn't matter because, just like 3.5, casters are (again, arguably) already much stronger at high levels. Therefore it shouldn't matter that this spell is overpowered because paladins should destroy evil opponents, which are the major foe in most campaigns, because there's no harm in making an already too strong class more powerful in most situations.
2) Direct damage as a high level primary caster is sub-optimal, therefore there's no problem with making a spell which is clearly stronger than most similar spells of its level because that type of spell isn't worth taking anyway.
3) An 8th level spell which is clearly much better than other spells available (even 9th level spells) of its level isn't a problem, even though a touch attack is quite easy to land on a variety of opponents at that level and does not allow a save
4) There's no problem with increasing the variety of swift action and "no save" spells available to "partial casters" because such classes are marginalized anyway.
5) A spell has a 1 round duration (a full attack at x2 damage!= encounter over) or has questionable duration which might be dispelled is not unbalanced even though it is still clearly better than other spells of its level.
1) Paladins aren't overpowered. But they are the best class at fighting evil, as it should be. You're right, they're already so good at fighting evil that this spell doesn't matter; they can steamroll a villain with Smite quite fine already. I'd actually use this spell on enemies I wasn't smiting (only get so many in a day) but needed a quick damage boost on. Wasting a smite and this on the same guy is hilariously pointless overkill. I might not even prepare it, since again, evil killing = COVERED, and prep a spell that lets me do something else entirely.
2) Well, Cold Ice Strike is worth taking. :) Only because its a swift action, the direct damage and 30 ft line aspects are pretty subpar. It is definitely better than any comparable blast spell. So are many buffs, debuffs, and battlefield control spells. *shrug* A quickened 3rd level spell would give you a 7th level slot for only 10d6 and lower save DC, but bigger area and a choice of several types of damage (Fireball and Lightning Bolt at least). CIS is 6th level and a specific damage type, you give up some versatility in choice for a 1 level reduction. Seems fine.
3) It's not clearly better. There are many great 8th and 9th level spells I'd take before this. Even staying in Enchantment (Compulsion), Dominate Monster is 9th level. There's a save, but it's ranged. Instead of making someone a non-combatant for 1 fight, it turn the target into your MIND SLAVE for the better part of a month. That effect is much, much greater than Tranquiliy's. It's also not language dependent, since you can give telepathic commands.
4) Yes.
5) Don't know what the point is here... 1 round spells last for one round and work pretty much as intended, a brief buff. LoV has a stupid duration and needs to be changed, but as a high level spell that just gives a +5 damage on every attack against one creature, it's pretty tame otherwise. Haste is a low/mid level spell that gives everyone an extra attack at full BAB (against any foe, not just one specific target), +30 ft speed, and +1 attack and AC. Haste seems stronger, and is available ~10 levels earlier.
The litany spells mentioned above each deserve to be looked at. The one that does double damage should be nerfed. Doubling smite damage even for one round is bad.
As for the litany of vengance I think it needs a duration added to it.
I don't know about other people, but in my campaigns when the BBEG sees a paladin he does a few things;
1) Makes the paladin the main target
2) Hires some neutral minions
3) Gets some protection against good ready
4) Resorts to every last possible countermeasure to avoid getting smote. Even an Ice troll (Int 9) is smart enough to take out the guy throwing fireballs and alchemist fire first, you don't want to know what the Int 20 lich does.
I have yet to find any problem in game that cannot be solved by planning out encounters and enemies based on the information available to them. Does the battle cleric just start whacking on the vampire without buffing first? Not if they want to live very long they don't, same deal with enemies.
Even without that spell those tactic work. The point is that one spell can shorten a fight by a round or 2 once the paladin reaches his primary target.
I don't mind smite making bad guys tremble in fear, but it does not ever need to be doubled.
You wanting different spells may just be a matter of playstyle. That does not mean a certain spell does not have issue.
@ the OP. Just because someone disagrees with you that does not stop it from being a discussion. They gave their opinion. If you think their logic, including mine since I disagreed with you on most of those also, is faulty then tell us why it is faulty. Nobody insulted or belittled you. It seems that you were just looking for yes men.
You wanting different spells may just be a matter of playstyle. That does not mean a certain spell does not have issue.
@ the OP. Just because someone disagrees with you that does not stop it from being a discussion. They gave their opinion. If you think their logic, including mine since I disagreed with you on most of those also, is faulty then tell us why it is faulty. Nobody insulted or belittled you. It seems that you were just looking for yes men.
Indeed if people don't disagree with you and discuss it then it is *not* a discussion at all.
Page 136 is talking about designing your own spells, not laying down judgement on all spells and options that should ever come later. They are being cautious there because they are offerning advice, not creating rules using proffessional designers. I also think that the mentality is a poor one, that I dont agree with. You stat a spell or option to accomplish what it is meant to accomplish. If Form of the dragon is meant to make you feel like you just turned into a dragon. Balance is the second concern, coherence and connection to the flavor is the first. That means that 'balanced' has to take on a subjective state and is not absolute. In games with far more rigid systems, like 4E absolute balance is possible, in pathfinder it is not.
In the end the spells should do what they were meant to do first, and banace is a secondary concern. A statement like 'Nor is stating that paladins are meant to beat up Evil. What is valid is comparing these spells to those in the Core Rulebook.' makes me think you are playing the wrong game to be honest. If what the class or option is supposed to be doing is not your first concern, then I think (read my opinion is:) pathfinder isnt for you.
Here is my point.
If you would like to argue that these spells are not more powerful than thos in the Core Rulebook, I would be interested to hear your opinion.
Fair enough.
Euphoric tranquility 8th level spell for sorc/wiz/cleric/oracle 6th level for bard:
A creature under the effect of this enchantment enters a state of euphoria. The target treats all creatures as dear friends and abhors violence, but may rise up to protect itself if violence is perpetrated against it. Until the end of the spell's duration, the creature's speed is halved, and it cannot make attacks or cast spells. If the creature is attacked, it gets a Will Saving Throw. If the Saving Throw succeeds, the creature can make act normally for 1 round. If the Saving Throw fails, the creature moves half its speed away from the attacker as its next action.
Am I the only one that sees how this could go wrong? Not to mention all the creatures immune to enchantment (compulsion) effects.
Look at Trap the soul. As far as wasting actions goes, how does eternity sound? No save or SR if your halfway intelligent about this. Yeah its expensive, but once again eternity and whatnot.
Antimagic field - What spell?
So its ok for a wizard to make someone their total and complete slave for 10+ days (Dominate Person) or to instantaneously transport him self 1000s of miles (Teleport)? Its ok for a cleric to be able heal ALL damage, cure all disease, remove all ailments with a single touch (Heal) or even bring the dead back to life (Raise Dead). But not ok for a Paladin to walk up and Smack an Evil baddy and OWN its sorry butt with holy vengence. I see all of these effects roughly on the same level and fitting the themes of the classes that get them. All of these effects have just as much impact on the game and story. I would say things like Teleport or Dominate person to be far more game/story impacting that.Even without that spell those tactic work. The point is that one spell can shorten a fight by a round or 2 once the paladin reaches his primary target.
I don't mind smite making bad guys tremble in fear, but it does not ever need to be doubled.
No it is not ok because the paladin owns the encounter once he gets to the BBEG. There are many monsters immune to enchant spells at high levels. If they are not immune the chances of the saves failing + SR blocking it are so high that the it is a bad gamble. Those things you mentioned don't impact games in the way that doubling damage would. It makes an encounter trivial, even if it should be an important. The dominate is much less likely to do so, well at least in my games anyway. The flip side is that a player would not be ok with it being done to them. Yeah I know there is no antipaladin/evil version of the spell yet, but what is good for PC's is good for NPC's. When you can apply it both ways then it would be ok. The fact that an evil version was avoid speaks to the power of the ability because of the number of complaints it would cause.
I was not looking for yes men, I was looking for people who would frame the discussion in the frame of comparing the spells to existing spells according to the rules that Paizo has set forth.
Fair enough.
Euphoric Tranquility
What we have here is an 8th level spell that requires a touch attack. I hate touch attack spells because if I am a sorc/wiz I don't want to be that close to the enemy. I would allow a will save due to an attack to end the spell though. The spell is however shutdown by the protection from alignment spells.
I don't think it is too much better than demand. You get to force will saves anywhere in the world, and across planar boundaries.
------------------------------------------------------------
Litany of righteousness
This is the one I agree with you on. The paladin should not be 1-rounding a martial based BBEG, and this spell allows it.
There is not a single 2nd level paladin spell that compares to it. Nor is there a single 3rd level inquisitor spell that compares to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cold Ice Strike
Evocation is the red-headed stepchild of casters according to most people and for good reason. Yeah this spell makes cone of cold pretty much irrelevant, but evocationist need boost. The only other really good thing they have going for them is the dazing spell feat.
I take that back.
----------------------------------
My main issue with this one is the duration. The spell should call for SR since it is affecting the target creature. I would have made it a 6th level inquisitor spell, and taken if off the paladin's list since it does seem to be clearly better than any similar spells.
so, trap the soul vs ET
no save vs a will save
16,000 GP cost vs. nothingyou need to make the target agree to accept the object vs just targeting them with the spell
but the target is imprisoned forever vs. just being useless for 16+ rounds
no, i still choose ET overwhelmingly. most situations last less than 16 rounds
if the target is immune to compulsion, of course i wouldn't choose ET. would i probably choose to cast trap the soul instead?
I do think trap the soul is comparable to ET so yeah I think ET is ok as an 8th level spell.
Maze also takes you out of the fight without a save. Most people don't pump intelligence so you are basically stuck there(in the maze).
My personal pet peeve about broken spells.
Simulacrum
School illusion (shadow); Level sorcerer/wizard 7, summoner 5
CASTINGCasting Time 12 hours
Components V, S, M (ice sculpture of the target plus powdered rubies worth 500 gp per HD of the simulacrum)
EFFECTRange 0 ft.
Effect one duplicate creature
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance noSimulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception check (opposed by the caster's Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.
At all times, the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner. A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness. A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum.
First of all what does "but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)" actually mean?
Someone one had a thread on these boards about a wizard with a Tarrasque mount. What limitations does this spell have exactly? In past editions you at least had to have a body part of what you were making a simulacrum of.
Can you make a...
I'd like to read the answer to this post.
Litany of Righteousness is very nice, but it still has some limits. First of all it is language dependent. Paladins usually aren't known for their linguistic prowress. So there will be a few creatures that this just won't work on. In addition SR still applies, and at CL= LvL-3, Paladins aren't great at piercing SR. The average lvl 15 Paladin (CL 12) would need a 16 on the die to pierce a CR 17 Ancient Green Dragon's SR of 28. Hardly game breaking.
The language dependent part is not to much of an issue. Most monsters can speak common. The SR is somewhat an issue, and it helps bring the spell back in line, but is not enough IMHO. This spell does make it worth it to get spell penetration though. If the paladin is an elf then he is no longer at a disadvantage if he takes spell penetration.
I still don't like the spell.
so, trap the soul vs ET
no save vs a will save
16,000 GP cost vs. nothingyou need to make the target agree to accept the object vs just targeting them with the spell
but the target is imprisoned forever vs. just being useless for 16+ rounds
no, i still choose ET overwhelmingly. most situations last less than 16 rounds
if the target is immune to compulsion, of course i wouldn't choose ET. would i probably choose to cast trap the soul instead?
How about comparing ET to Dominate Monster, like I did?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about comparing ET to Dominate Monster, like I did?
Or Maze, which is what Wraithstrike suggested. I'm going to compare ET to Maze:
Level, casting time, components: The same or a wash.
Range: Maze is close (at least 95ft), while ET requires a successful touch attack (which also necessitates being adjacent to the enemy). Big edge to Maze.
Defenses: Neither spell allows a save and both allow SR. ET is a mind-affecting & compulsion effect, which means Undead, Constructs, Plants, Oozes, and Vermin are immunune to it, plus there are abilities that give immunity to compulsions and mind-affecting effects. Maze will work on all creature types. So Maze is superior here too.
Duration: ET lasts 1 round per level. Maze can last up to 10 minutes, but the victim gets a chance to escape each round. Most CR 16 creatures have an average Int of 18 so they'd have a 25% chance to escape the maze each round. Inherently it's more likely that ET will last longer. One important factor is that ET can be dispelled, while Maze cannot.
Effect: Both spells have the practical effect of rendering an enemy unable to take any action against you. Maze removes the possibility of affecting the victim with your own attacks, while ET's partial save means if you attack the victim while under its effects it's likely the victim will be able to act normally.
In the end I think it's safe to say that Maze is superior to ET; most explicitly with its superior range and variety of applicable targets. So therefore ET meets the criteria of being weaker than a core rulebook spell of the same level with similar effects.