RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Everyone on these forums loves to talk smack and say how damaging spells are garbage. God forbid we finally get a damaging spell worth while and everybody is throwing up their hands. sigh.Snowball is so much more than just a blast.
It can be made into something that is very nearly save or die. Cutting damage in half won't change that.
How so? I'm not the metamagic expert, I'll freely admit.
This spell doesn't shine at 1-5. It shines at 10, when it's 10d6 base +50% damage from empower, for a 3rd level slot, and is the best blast in the game.I'm not sure I ever worried about SR at lvl 1-5 where the level 1 and 2 spells shine.
If you're at the point where you're fighting critters with SR and you think a nuke for 5d6 is awesome that might stagger after it maybe hits, you don't have enough spells known...
im not seeing how this third level spell is topping disintegrate personally.
The problem isn't just that the spell is too good. The problem is it's a conjuration spell, the strongest school in the game, that is better than every evocation spell of comparable level, at doing what evocation is supposed to do. On top of that, it's useless for an actual evoker since his evocation school tricks won't work on it.
Egg Zachary!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem isn't just that the spell is too good. The problem is it's a conjuration spell, the strongest school in the game, that is better than every evocation spell of comparable level, at doing what evocation is supposed to do. On top of that, it's useless for an actual evoker since his evocation school tricks won't work on it.Egg Zachary!
[axe-grinding rant]
I'd go one step further and say that the problem is that the school system in Pathfinder, which was inherited from D&D, is and always has been an illogical steaming pile of crap that has been grandfathered in from edition to edition without getting the overhaul it desperately needs. The schools need to have meaningful mechanical distinctions that are followed by designers generally, rather than the current half-assed sytem based on the handful of random buckets EGG developed in the pre-dawn of gaming and flavor-text based bucket assignment. If you can't make any spell into a Transmutation spell, you're not trying hard enough (fireball = I turned the air into fire!).
[/axe-grinding rant]
im not seeing how this third level spell is topping disintegrate personally.Uh, it's third level, not 6th? It allows no SR, disintegrate does?
But thanks for pointing this out, Disintegrate is another touch spell that has a save, and allows SR. Only with disintegrate you don't do half damage on a save, you do a whopping 5d6.
So by the time you can cast disintegrate, you can blow one of your two or three 6th level slots on damage spell (horrible use of the slot) to try to do 24 d6, or you can use one of your eight or nine 3rd level slots on a no-save, no-sr 15d6, which will actually be much more DPR vs a target with high SR or high fort(almost all of them)...
Seems an easy choice to me. (I'm not saying disintegrate doesn't have it's uses, but for straight damage dealing vs SR targets, snowball probably wins, which is kinda ridiculous)
yes it has a save and applies to SR. BUT, every damaging spell that does d6 per level and is a ranged touch attack you cant save for half damage. youre trying to save to avoid the added effect. besides, by the time that you get to the level you need to be able to buff it youll have better options.
and who cares? lower level slots are a resource that arent very often used at upper level which is fine with me. and 24d6 vs 15d6 helps out plentifully when things have fast healing and cold resistance. and its not its too big of a problem since everyone on here seems to hate blasting (which i actually love) so why does it matter? are you gonna take it? maybe. are you going to want to take certain metamagic feats that dont go with your build? most likely not. are you even playing that theme of a character? depends. i dont see a reason to take rime spell if you arent a cold based character or plan on taking multiple cold blasting spells, and most people dont take blasting spells, at least not very many.
and in the end, if you think its a problem, ban it! my group thinks this spell is great and we will be using it immensely at our table.
Well at least it didn't come in 5 flavours on its own and wasn't using d8's for damage. A bit powerful for a 1st level spell but t's in an odd book too. No reason to assume it's a core assumption unless it's actually in a main rulebook.
Speaking of 5 flavors: where is my fire or Electric based Stone call (2d6 damage, no save, difficult terrain, fireball area/range).
I guess conjuration isn't good enough, so they decided to give it the best damage spells to boost it. After all, evocation doesn't include any cold spells.
|
Curious is it more possible to be made into something very nearly save or die than say Shocking Grasp or Scorching Ray (or even Acid Splash)?
Yes.
Stagger is huge on its own. It shuts down most non-casters.
The fact that a focused caster can bump the DC to 20+ while tacking on both fatigue and exhaustion and still have a level 1 spell is actually outside of spell level considerations. A focused build can do nasty things with any decent spell.
Bit disappointed to see this back in this form honestly. I'd probably have been fine with it if a successful save made it half damage or if the damage was 1d6 per 2 levels but this is far and away stronger than anything else for first level spells. Conjuration school and no spell resistance are just kicks to the groin. It's just too good.
Desintegrate has poor DPR compared to the "good" blasts (snowball, battering blast) and no side effect, no utility, no flexibility. And less options when it comes to metamagic feats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... we're back to conjuration having the best single target blast spell and everything else it's already awesome at?
really pathfinder, have we learned nothing?
;_;
- Torger
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ughhh I hate Conjuration spells getting SR: None more than anything.
This isn't a magical snowball, it's non-magical snow that I summoned here! It's not a magical fireball, it's non-magical fire that I happened to summon here!
Magical energy is magical energy. Don't make some arbitrary distinction between "evoked" cold and "conjured" cold that makes no sense and disenfranchises Evocation specialists even more.
Ughhh I hate Conjuration spells getting SR: None more than anything.
This isn't a magical snowball, it's non-magical snow that I summoned here! It's not a magical fireball, it's non-magical fire that I happened to summon here!
Magical energy is magical energy. Don't make some arbitrary distinction between "evoked" cold and "conjured" cold that makes no sense and disenfranchises Evocation specialists even more.
Indeed, although the spell makes little sense as a conjuration spell.
It's a non-magical snowball you throw that deals up to 5d6 dmg (before metamagic) and staggers your enemy. Yeah, that's not a snowball. That's a crazy magical snow attack (imho, should be Necromancy).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As others have said, my main problem with this spell is that it is conjuration. Already the best school. Trampling all over evocation, arguably the weakest school, and its niche.
I don't think it needs to allow SR. It just needs to be evocation.
This whole "conjuration gets no SR attack spells but evocation doesn't" thing needs to freaking die. Seriously.
This whole "conjuration gets no SR attack spells but evocation doesn't" thing needs to freaking die. Seriously.
But it makes sense in the context of the flavor of the schools of magic.
The thing you conjure with the spell isn't itself magical, so spell resistance shouldn't apply to it. You can keep this element of the conjuration school without making conjuration too good by merely toning down specific conjuration school spells, like this one.
This whole "conjuration gets no SR attack spells but evocation doesn't" thing needs to freaking die. Seriously.But it makes sense in the context of the flavor of the schools of magic.
The thing you conjure with the spell isn't itself magical, so spell resistance shouldn't apply to it. You can keep this element of the conjuration school without making conjuration too good by merely toning down specific conjuration school spells, like this one.
Acid? Yes. Rocks? Sure. Monsters? You bet.
A freakin' snowball that's better than anything an evoker can do at that level for direct damage? No.
We're in for a repeat of bloat and splat, the same stuff that made 3.x so ridiculous.
This whole "conjuration gets no SR attack spells but evocation doesn't" thing needs to freaking die. Seriously.But it makes sense in the context of the flavor of the schools of magic.
The thing you conjure with the spell isn't itself magical, so spell resistance shouldn't apply to it. You can keep this element of the conjuration school without making conjuration too good by merely toning down specific conjuration school spells, like this one.
Acid, yes. Rocks, sure. Monsters? You bet.
Cold? No.
As I've said in this thread a few times, cold should be a necromancy thing (as cold is the absence of heat; you shouldn't be able to evoke or conjure that).
Acid makes the most sense as a conjuration thing, as it is created and (usually) deals damage over time.
These themes should maintained and not violated, IMHO. Especially since a mundane snowball wouldn't do anything like this spell.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Necromancy shouldn't have anything to do with cold, imo. It's about manipulating life-energies, not about magical energy attacks. There are a lot of cold-element evocation spells anyway (ice storm, cone of cold, wall of ice, etc). Don't think about "evoking" or "conjuring" a lack of things, think about evoking magical energies of the cold/water/ice element.
I personally think acid spells should also be evocation too... why the heck does conjuration get them? Conjuring acid? Why can't I evoke magical acid instead?
In my games, I move all those direct damage pseudo-evocation conjurations to evocation anyway.
As I've said in this thread a few times, cold should be a necromancy thing (as cold is the absence of heat; you shouldn't be able to evoke or conjure that).
Acid makes the most sense as a conjuration thing, as it is created and (usually) deals damage over time.
These themes should maintained and not violated, IMHO. Especially since a mundane snowball wouldn't do anything like this spell.
I respectfully disagree. Necromancy is about negative energy. "Chill touch" is the name of a spell that uses negative energy. It doesn't hurt you with cold. That's what Ray of Frost and Cone of Cold do, and it should be cold energy, not a freakin' snowball.
Necromancy shouldn't have anything to do with cold, imo. It's about manipulating life-energies, not about magical energy attacks. There are a lot of cold-element evocation spells anyway (ice storm, cone of cold, wall of ice, etc). Don't think about "evoking" or "conjuring" a lack of things, think about evoking magical energies of the cold/water/ice element.
I personally think acid spells should also be evocation too... why the heck does conjuration get them? Conjuring acid? Why can't I evoke magical acid instead?
In my games, I move all those direct damage pseudo-evocation conjurations to evocation anyway.
And this is why there can never be peace! Really, this is just a matter of opinion. I am not going to argue the logic of magical spells.
At least we (almost) all agree that the spell in question is unwelcome.
I personally think acid spells should also be evocation too... why the heck does conjuration get them? Conjuring acid? Why can't I evoke magical acid instead?
An admixture evoker can change a spell to acid, but for some reason, it still grants saves and SR. I have no problem with conjured acid not doing so. It's traditionally weak, and the benefit of Acid Arrow is damage over time (force concentration checks on enemy casters).
In my games, I move all those direct damage pseudo-evocation conjurations to evocation anyway.
Now, if Paizo will do the same, we can all play the same game with sensible delineations of what direct damage spells can and can't do.
Creative Director
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note: For better or worse, we often "test out" new rules in the campaign setting line. When the new rules work and are popular, we end up supporting them—see things like the chase rules, the red mantis assassin prestige class, tons of new monsters, etc.
When they end up not working or have poor receptions, we tend to let them go fallow. They don't end up in hardcovers; they don't get supported in the future, etc. Achievement feats are a good example of this, as is the first incarnation of the hide shirt or several of the feats from the original hardcover campaign setting.
So... the appearance of this spell should NOT be taken, necessarily, as a hint of things to come or of Paizo's goal to replicate the infamous orb spells or to further destroy the school of evocation.
That all said... thanks a ton for the feedback! It's super helpful! :-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I respectfully disagree. Necromancy is about negative energy. "Chill touch" is the name of a spell that uses negative energy. It doesn't hurt you with cold. That's what Ray of Frost and Cone of Cold do, and it should be cold energy, not a freakin' snowball.
"Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force. Spells involving undead creatures make up a large part of this school."
Necromancy is manipulating life energies, both positive and negative. Disrupt undead uses positive energy for example. In older editions, cure spells were necromancy spells, I'll note (and I wish they still were!)
Chill touch does negative energy damage. It doesn't deal cold damage. Snowball deals cold damage. The spells aren't really related, except that they might both make you feel pretty cold (but for different reasons).
OK, I have read several people's opinion on here that the "orb" spells were broken in 3.5.Shouldn't believe crap that you've read on the internet. The orbs were not broken; not even close to broken. As a DM during the heyday of 3.5, I loved it when a caster wasted a 4th lvl slot: 15d6, big whoop. I would just laugh on the inside and think to myself: "thanks for not screwing the encounter with an save or lose/suck/die spell".
This new orb isn't broken either. Blasting has been a crap strategy for a long time; it needs to be and should be buffed. So what if a caster can cast a spell for 10d6 (oh no ~35 damage from a level 10 caster, what will we ever do), there are numerous ways for martial types to do even more damage all day every day. The staggered condition is nothing to worry about either. So what if one baddie is staggered for a turn; if that results in the party winning there are bigger problems at that table than this spell.
I certainly don't believe the crap on the internet. I have my own experience to draw on. If you expect blasting to kill the BBEG in one round, you don't know how to use it to best effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note: For better or worse, we often "test out" new rules in the campaign setting line. When the new rules work and are popular, we end up supporting them—see things like the chase rules, the red mantis assassin prestige class, tons of new monsters, etc.
When they end up not working or have poor receptions, we tend to let them go fallow. They don't end up in hardcovers; they don't get supported in the future, etc. Achievement feats are a good example of this, as is the first incarnation of the hide shirt or several of the feats from the original hardcover campaign setting.
So... the appearance of this spell should NOT be taken, necessarily, as a hint of things to come or of Paizo's goal to replicate the infamous orb spells or to further destroy the school of evocation.
That all said... thanks a ton for the feedback! It's super helpful! :-)
Thanks for reading through the flames and taking on the feedback, James. That's what sets pathfinder above the rest!
Makes sense to test things out in the peripheral books, but sadly it seems a lot of people take all splatbooks as instant canon. I don't know if you can really make it any clearer to people that, especially in non-core, it's quite OK for a DM to simply not include that content.
OK, I have read several people's opinion on here that the "orb" spells were broken in 3.5.Shouldn't believe crap that you've read on the internet. The orbs were not broken; not even close to broken. As a DM during the heyday of 3.5, I loved it when a caster wasted a 4th lvl slot: 15d6, big whoop. I would just laugh on the inside and think to myself: "thanks for not screwing the encounter with an save or lose/suck/die spell".
This new orb isn't broken either. Blasting has been a crap strategy for a long time; it needs to be and should be buffed. So what if a caster can cast a spell for 10d6 (oh no ~35 damage from a level 10 caster, what will we ever do), there are numerous ways for martial types to do even more damage all day every day. The staggered condition is nothing to worry about either. So what if one baddie is staggered for a turn; if that results in the party winning there are bigger problems at that table than this spell.
If you'll read the feedback thus far you'll note that the bulk of it isn't complaining about a new high water mark in damage potential, it's complaining about conjuration stealing evocations thunder (or in this case snow).
- Torger
Holy crap, this entire thread I thought this was a homebrew spell. I didn't realize this came from an actual sourcebook. Honestly I'm pretty flabbergasted.
lol, yeah i thought that at first too.
- Torger
Thanks for reading through the flames and taking on the feedback, James. That's what sets pathfinder above the rest!
Makes sense to test things out in the peripheral books, but sadly it seems a lot of people take all splatbooks as instant canon. I don't know if you can really make it any clearer to people that, especially in non-core, it's quite OK for a DM to simply not include that content.
Well, you see, spells like that set a precedent that allows for more cheese down the road.
A GM might say, "OK. We're playing in the north, so the spells in that setting book are fine."
Actually, in the north, where so many things are resistant to cold damage, it's not a big deal. It's not all that awesome there. It's just flavorful.
The problem is that some things do become canon over time. GMs have enough on their plate without having to go through every little thing a player wants to do just because it's in some setting book.
I remember the rare cantrip, Jolt. It was a transmutation spell.
WTF? How is an electric direct damage cantrip transmutation? Don't we already have electricity spells? Aren't they all evocations? They are for all the classes that cast them, AFAIK.
Say what you will about the efficacy of damaging evocations, but calling it out of thin air is what evokers do, not transmuters. They have their own way of changing things, like turning people into slugs and stuff.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh...so who's the one with the hard on for conjuration that came over from wizards? You all need to smack whoever that is when s/he puts out stuff like this. This spell as an evocation spell...no problem. As a necro spell...well might work with a bit of a refluff. As a conjuration spell?!? Really?!? Normal conjured snowballs do not do 5d6 damage and cause stagger. They do MAYBE 1d6 subdual damage. Honestly this whole conjuration has to have everything (including a spell that somehow conjured a non-magical orb or magical force for crying out loud in 3.5) really needs to stop. The school has too much as it is. Hell I'd like to even see the various acid DoT (well all the conj DoT really) and damaging fog spell lines moved to evocation.
Jolt clearly transmutes the target into an electrically positive/negative state so that it gets zapped by static enough to hurt it.
I like the idea of a snowball conjuration spell, but I can see the point of the argument that the damage is too high (and that metamagic interactions were probably not considered).
Edit: What if it was nonlethal?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. While I'm mildly annoyed that it's conjuration, this spell really doesn't bother me for a number of reasons.
It's a low level spell that bypasses SR. By the time I start seeing a good number of spell resistant enemies, I've probably got much better spells at my disposal. It also requires a ranged touch attack, which does not equal instant hit as some people seem to think. With crappy base attack bonus and probably not fantastic dexterity, missing is a very likely outcome at the levels you're most likely to use the spell.
There may be metamagic abuses I'm not aware of, but I usually stray away from those anyway.
*Looks at the new spell that just moved in next door*
Aw, crap. Well, there goes the neighborhood. ;)
...the appearance of this spell should NOT be taken, necessarily, as a hint of things to come or of Paizo's goal to replicate the infamous orb spells or to further destroy the school of evocation.
That all said... thanks a ton for the feedback! It's super helpful! :-)
James, thanks for the clarification! I'm not one for spells that let Conjuration take Evocation's lunch money, especially where things like spell resistance are concerned, but I understand it's worth testing the waters. Just put this one gamer's vote as 100% against the trend.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no testing the waters, though.
No SR conjurations making Evocation sad has been done before. It pissed people off. Shockingly, it still today...pisses people off.
If they really did want to try something different, they'd have made it a direct damage no SR evocation spell. That would have been truly breaking some new ground. Instead, PF just handed another gift to the most awesome school in the game, like 3E did before it.
Note: For better or worse, we often "test out" new rules in the campaign setting line. When the new rules work and are popular, we end up supporting them—see things like the chase rules, the red mantis assassin prestige class, tons of new monsters, etc.
When they end up not working or have poor receptions, we tend to let them go fallow. They don't end up in hardcovers; they don't get supported in the future, etc. Achievement feats are a good example of this, as is the first incarnation of the hide shirt or several of the feats from the original hardcover campaign setting.
So... the appearance of this spell should NOT be taken, necessarily, as a hint of things to come or of Paizo's goal to replicate the infamous orb spells or to further destroy the school of evocation.
That all said... thanks a ton for the feedback! It's super helpful! :-)
Soooo, I guess Agile weapons were deemed too powerful after the initial feedback? I'll take that into account for my next campaign, I've already allowed them for the current ones. ^^
There's nothing wrong with Agile, or Dervish Dance. Dex based fighters are underpowered, if anything. Guided may be overpowered, since it buffs attack AND damage and lets off-hand / 2ndary natural weapons get full modifier to damage, and because it makes clerics and druids even more awesome at melee. Of course, it also helps reduce a monk's MAD, but the real power use is sticking it onto CoDzilla.
There's nothing wrong with Agile, or Dervish Dance. Dex based fighters are underpowered, if anything.
Pretty much this exactly.
Eh, just going by the logical reasoning James laid out in his post above. There was a flurry of complaints that Agile didn't make the cut into Ultimate Equipment, but also a counter-reaction that said it was too powerful. I am extrapolating that Paizo agrees with the second faction after review of the feedback.
Funnily enough, none of the players in both parties has even tried to build a character based around that enchantment, although I specifically allowed it for both my Jade Regent campaigns. Well, we got a replacement character who has Dervish Dance, we'll see how he does at his job.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dervish dance is a much different beast than just getting the agile enhancement. Dervish specifically limits you to one handed use and one one specific weapon. Dervish also requires an investment of feats. Agile you can apply to anything and can be acquired for simple gold. It is particularly nasty when applied to an amulet of mighty fists and in combination with a large number of natural attacks.
Even with the limits on Dervish Dancer, it dominates the magus weapon choice and fighting style to a ridiculous extent.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for reading through the flames and taking on the feedback, James. That's what sets pathfinder above the rest!
Makes sense to test things out in the peripheral books, but sadly it seems a lot of people take all splatbooks as instant canon. I don't know if you can really make it any clearer to people that, especially in non-core, it's quite OK for a DM to simply not include that content.
In fact, be it the Core Rulebook, a hardcover supplement, a softcover Player's Companion, a blog post, or whatever... it's ALL optional. It's quite okay for a GM to simply not include ANY of that content.
The simple truth that far more people see the contents of the hardcover rulebooks makes them more widespread, so rules that appear there tend to have more "weight" to them, which is why we try out the new stuff often in the books with the smaller print runs. We work just as hard to make the content of the Campaign Setting products as interesting and balanced and fun as we do the contents of the hardcovers, even if we DO get a bit more experimental in the softcover books.
But it's all optional, regardless of how hard or soft a cover is.