RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
As an aside, elves are not immune to mind-affecting effects.Correct I had just posted a response on sleep and it stuck in my head.
The only regular enemies that are immune to mind-affecting effects are the undead, constructs and nonintelligent plants and animals. That is a fairly small subset of opponents.Yes, there are ways for enemies to prepare for it - but most opponents in PFS do not.
Define 'most'. Well in the PFS modules I have played I have had a different experience. Of course your experience may differ.
Out of the last half dozen or so I can recall about 4 of them had the following encounters more or less laid out as:
Roleplay.
Undead.
Roleplay.
Undead.
Undead.Roleplay.
Undead.
Construct.
Roleplay.
Fey. (vulnerable)
Undead.Roleplay.
Vermin.
Traps.
More Traps.
Fey. (vulnerable)Roleplay.
Roleplay.
Illusions.
Roleplay.
Combat optional. Human/humanoids (vulnerable.)So single-target 1 round confusion would not have been very useful. Granted YMMV.
Given that this is a level 8 ability, vermin are much less common. Constructs and Undead remain a thing, but hardly one which outnumbers the spellcasters or very strong monsters that PFS teams often face.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But the argument that "under the effect of a confusion spell" would itself prompt the save is simply a load of BS.Oh you charmer. You missed out "in my opinion".
I quoted the entire post I was replying to, which at the time of my post (and of this one), contained no reference to your opinion.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Are you arguing that that's the correct interpretation of the actual ability, or saying that it should have a will save despite how the ability is written?I think the ability as-written has no will save. I also think it deserves errata as a result.
Okay, that I can be okay with. :) I disagree that it needs to get errata'd into having a save (for various reasons I've described upthread), but at least you're not trying to argue that the save is part of confusion's effect like several others have claimed.
Anyway, based on SKR having said previously that he'd look into it* and then clearing the FAQ request without making any changes, I'd say errata is not on its way. Thus, the only options I see for this ability are "houserule it" or "no save".
*By the way, since SKR said he'd look into the save question, I think that makes it even more clear that, as-written, there isn't one. If the current wording really did mean there was a save, he'd have said so, instead of saying he'd find out if there was supposed to be a clause requiring a save. I can understand thinking there *should* be a save, but these arguments that the current text already calls for one are ludicrous.
|
Yeah, I'm not arguing about the way things are - more about how they should be.
I think this issue will keep coming up until Paizo either erratas it or explains why they think it's fine. The number of faq hits on the OP shows that plenty of people think the ability is overpowered as written. So I'm in favor of the devs weighing in and settling this once and for all (one way or another.) And yes, I'm happy to houserule a will save at the normal DC for my games.
Jiggy: We want to encourage teamwork, but this steamrolls every scenario that has been written, in my opinion.
As far as comparing it to domains:
Charm Domain: Quickened Charm Person. Nice, but not the same level.
Protection Domain: Sort of like a defensive bard song. Also nice, not game breaking.
Chaos Domain: Make your weapon Anarchic for a few rounds. Still not game breaking.
Air Domain: Resist Electricity 10. Yawn.
Destruction: This is a lot closer - all allies get half your cleric level in a to-hit bonus. Very nice...but it's still not the same level.
Death: Immune to negative channelers. More yawn.
Community: Allies use your saving throws, not theirs. Pretty good! Still not game breaking.
Artifice: Makes your weapon dancing. Not bad! Not breaking.Are there any particular domains that I should be looking at to prove your point?
Yes, you should be looking here
Healing Domain: Healer's Blessing (Su): At 6th level, all of your cure spells are treated as if they were empowered, increasing the amount of damage healed by half (+50%). This does not apply to damage dealt to undead with a cure spell. This does not stack with the Empower Spell metamagic feat.Liberation Domain: Freedom's Call (Su): At 8th level, you can emit a 30-foot aura of freedom for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. Allies within this aura are not affected by the confused, grappled, frightened, panicked, paralyzed, pinned, or shaken conditions. This aura only suppresses these effects, and they return once a creature leaves the aura or when the aura ends, if applicable. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.
Travel Domain: Dimensional Hop (Sp): At 8th level, you can teleport up to 10 feet per cleric level per day as a move action. This teleportation must be used in 5-foot increments and such movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You must have line of sight to your destination to use this ability. You can bring other willing creatures with you, but you must expend an equal amount of distance for each creature brought.
The liberation domain in particular is one of the most powerful domain abilities bar none.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The number of faq hits on the OP shows that plenty of people think the ability is overpowered as written. So I'm in favor of the devs weighing in and settling this once and for all (one way or another.)
Well, don't hold your breath—it was already noticed by a designer a couple years back, got almost the same number of FAQ clicks, but was then cleared from their FAQ queue as "answered in the FAQ" (which, if memory serves, is the same flag category they use for "this functions as written"). So all the evidence points to it having been looked at and deemed acceptable as-is. Even so, I suppose it wouldn't hurt for me to go FAQ the OP as a courtesy.
|
|
Jiggy: We want to encourage teamwork, but this steamrolls every scenario that has been written, in my opinion.
As far as comparing it to domains:
Charm Domain: Quickened Charm Person. Nice, but not the same level.
Protection Domain: Sort of like a defensive bard song. Also nice, not game breaking.
Chaos Domain: Make your weapon Anarchic for a few rounds. Still not game breaking.
Air Domain: Resist Electricity 10. Yawn.
Destruction: This is a lot closer - all allies get half your cleric level in a to-hit bonus. Very nice...but it's still not the same level.
Death: Immune to negative channelers. More yawn.
Community: Allies use your saving throws, not theirs. Pretty good! Still not game breaking.
Artifice: Makes your weapon dancing. Not bad! Not breaking.Are there any particular domains that I should be looking at to prove your point?
Yes, you should be looking here
Healing Domain: Healer's Blessing (Su): At 6th level, all of your cure spells are treated as if they were empowered, increasing the amount of damage healed by half (+50%). This does not apply to damage dealt to undead with a cure spell. This does not stack with the Empower Spell metamagic feat.Liberation Domain: Freedom's Call (Su): At 8th level, you can emit a 30-foot aura of freedom for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. Allies within this aura are not affected by the confused, grappled, frightened, panicked, paralyzed, pinned, or shaken conditions. This aura only suppresses these effects, and they return once a creature leaves the aura or when the aura ends, if applicable. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.
Travel Domain: Dimensional Hop (Sp): At 8th level, you can teleport up to 10 feet per cleric level per day as a move action. This teleportation must be used in 5-foot increments and such movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You must have line of sight to your destination to use this ability. You can bring other willing creatures with...
Another to compare it to; The Repose domain:
Ward Against Death (Su): At 8th level, you can emit a 30-foot aura that wards against death for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. Living creatures in this area are immune to all death effects, energy drain, and effects that cause negative levels. This ward does not remove negative levels that a creature has already gained, but the negative levels have no effect while the creature is inside the warded area. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.So at 8th level you can trivialize many undead encounters.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In the event that a "no response is required",
We already got an "answered in the FAQ" the first time around, after SKR said he'd look into it. Why do you need a second resolution?
I'll next start a thread asking for it to be banned specifically, so it will stay in the PFS forum.
Yeah, mixing that with the rules question kind of shot yourself in the foot. If you want it banned from PFS, you're going to need a new thread.
In the event that a "no response is required",We already got an "answered in the FAQ" the first time around, after SKR said he'd look into it. Why do you need a second resolution?
Because there wasn't a first one.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Because there wasn't a first one.In the event that a "no response is required",We already got an "answered in the FAQ" the first time around, after SKR said he'd look into it. Why do you need a second resolution?
The design team often uses "answered in the FAQ" to mean that the rules item in question functions as written. That was the conclusion of the first FAQ-flagged post on this topic, after SKR said he was looking into it. So yes, there was a "first one".
The design team isn't in the habit of taking the time to state "this does exactly what it says it does", so I wouldn't hold my breath for anything more explicit than what we got two years ago.
the best way to prevent apples to oranges comparisons is to compare to other bomb abilites not other class abilities.
Because there wasn't a first one.In the event that a "no response is required",We already got an "answered in the FAQ" the first time around, after SKR said he'd look into it. Why do you need a second resolution?
The design team often uses "answered in the FAQ" to mean that the rules item in question functions as written. That was the conclusion of the first FAQ-flagged post on this topic, after SKR said he was looking into it. So yes, there was a "first one".
The design team isn't in the habit of taking the time to state "this does exactly what it says it does", so I wouldn't hold my breath for anything more explicit than what we got two years ago.
No "Answered in in FAQ" was often used to simply clear the queue of unclear questions or ones they didn't want to address yet. No accurate conclusions of intent can be made from that.
Tim: Trivializing many undead encounters is far, far less powerful than trivializing most non-undead encounters.
Then look at the liberation domain. Making your whole group immune to confused, grappled, frightened, panicked, paralyzed, pinned, or shaken trivlializes a lot of encounters.
Hold Monster, nope.
Intimidate, nope.
Ghoul paralyze, nope.
Grappling Monk, nope.
Any monster with grappling and/or swallowing abilities, nope.
Alchemist with confusion bombs, nope.
Anything with fear effects(dragons, undead, etc), nope.
Then remember that clerics get 2 domains, so you could have Liberation AND Repose Domains.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No "Answered in in FAQ" was often used to simply clear the queue of unclear questions or ones they didn't want to address yet. No accurate conclusions of intent can be made from that.The design team often uses "answered in the FAQ" to mean that the rules item in question functions as written. That was the conclusion of the first FAQ-flagged post on this topic, after SKR said he was looking into it. So yes, there was a "first one".
The design team isn't in the habit of taking the time to state "this does exactly what it says it does", so I wouldn't hold my breath for anything more explicit than what we got two years ago.
You might be thinking of "no response required", which they've cited as sometimes meaning "the question is unclear" or "we can't answer this because it's part of a larger issue that we can't deal with right away".
But even if you were right about other possible meanings of "answered in the FAQ", we know that it's not an issue of the question being unclear because a designer acknowledged the question and said he was going to find out whether there was supposed to be a save or not. We also know it's not an issue of not being able to fully address it yet, because it's a very self-contained issue with no far-reaching effects (unlike, say, how darkness and daylight interact).
Do we know 100% hand-down take-it-to-the-bank? No. But interpreting it as "this functions as written" has waaaaaaay more support than any other interpretation. It's not even close.
|
|
Tim: Trivializing many undead encounters is far, far less powerful than trivializing most non-undead encounters.Then look at the liberation domain. Making your whole group immune to confused, grappled, frightened, panicked, paralyzed, pinned, or shaken trivlializes a lot of encounters.
Hold Monster, nope.
Intimidate, nope.
Ghoul paralyze, nope.
Grappling Monk, nope.
Any monster with grappling and/or swallowing abilities, nope.
Alchemist with confusion bombs, nope.
Anything with fear effects(dragons, undead, etc), nope.Then remember that clerics get 2 domains, so you could have Liberation AND Repose Domains.
Not to mention the infamous Black Tentacles.
|
I have an AC that says that when I take Int, Wis, or Cha damage I am confused for a number of rounds equal to the damage I took. No save. Is that overpowered?
You Armor Class do what?
Or it is your Animal Compaion?Americans and acronyms. [roll eyes]
Its "as per confusion"
confusion has a will save to negate
Alchemists abilities are dc 10+1/2 level +int mod.
Not as clear as an official FAQ would make it but good enough.
A creature that takes a direct hit from a confusion bomb takes damage from the bomb and is under the effect of a confusion spell for 1 round per caster level of the alchemist.
Generally "is under the effect of XXX" mean that the creature has been affected by XXX, whatever it is.
You could also note that
Any confused creature who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes
and you did just hit him in the head with a bomb.
Probably not the intent, since it makes the bomb almost useless.
And that generate a interesting question about the confusion spell: casting a spell on someone is an attack.
So either all attacks done just before becoming confused matter (so the confused creature will attack the caster/alchemist) or none matter, and the first and only the attacks made after confusion take effect matter.I think that the second interpretation is the valid one.
To cite confusion:
Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn,
You need to be already confused when attacked to latch on a specific attacker.
I don't like no save effects that last longer than a round, especially so if there is no spell to remove their effect. Such spells and effects trivialize encounters and ruin my time as a DM.
I allow the confusion spell or effect to be removed by calm emotions. I understand that option is not available to everyone because other DMs interpret calm emotions differently than I do. I would prefer a save be allowed. I hope the rules team gets on this quickly, because arguments between DMs and players over rules like this are very annoying.
|
|
To make the comparison to confusion a little less apples-and-oranges, here's a more comparable ability:
Gift of Madness (Su): You tap into the unthinkable void between the stars and cause a single living creature within 30 feet to become confused for 1 round. A successful Will save negates the effect. This is a mind-affecting compulsion effect. At 7th level, the confusion lasts for a number of rounds equal to your oracle level. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.So if we compare an 8th-level alchemist and oracle, they can each target a single creature for a confusion effect several times per day, lasting a round per level.
The alchemist can do it more (by 5, unless he invests feats), but he's expending a primary class resource while the oracle's ability is self-contained (doesn't cost so much as a spell slot).
The alchemist can deal damage, but can also hurt allies if he misses.
Both rely on a single d20 roll: a touch attack for the alchemist, a save for the oracle.
The oracle will probably have a save in the neighborhood of DC 21-22, while the alchemist's ranged attack bonus is probably something like +10 against touch (depending on how much DEX he bought). That's good odds on both, except the alchemist still has to deal with firing into melee (unless he spends two feats) and cover (stuck with it) and concealment (stuck with it). The oracle doesn't care about any of those.
All in all, I don't think this bomb can be called overpowered, even without a save (which I contend it doesn't grant).
Probably ninja'd a bunch again. Oh well.
Don't forget that he still get to apply the bomb damage to the target and the splash damage in the surrounding area (less the 2d6 paid for the confusion effect) .
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the event that a "no response is required",We already got an "answered in the FAQ" the first time around, after SKR said he'd look into it. Why do you need a second resolution?
Rationale would be nice. This ability already ignores SR, deals not-insignificant damage, is usable many times/day, and because it's supernatural, can't be dispelled. No saving throw on top of all that is overkill. So if the devs do think it's working as intended I'd love to know what's going into that decision.
Regardless of their answer I'll give it one of course, but anything that cuts down table arguments can only improve the health of the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Rationale would be nice. This ability already ignores SR, deals not-insignificant damage, is usable many times/day, and because it's supernatural, can't be dispelled. No saving throw on top of all that is overkill. So if the devs do think it's working as intended I'd love to know what's going into that decision.In the event that a "no response is required",We already got an "answered in the FAQ" the first time around, after SKR said he'd look into it. Why do you need a second resolution?
Well, I won't fault anyone for curiosity I suppose. :)
Regardless of their answer I'll give it one of course, but anything that cuts down table arguments can only improve the health of the game.
You know, GMs accepting what's on the page cuts down table arguments too. So that would be good for the health of the game too, right? ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, GMs accepting what's on the page cuts down table arguments too. So that would be good for the health of the game too, right? ;)
Not if it hurts the overall health of the game in the process. A single player Being able to instantly deny 75% of an Ancient Dragon or Solar's normal actions with an 8th-level ability doesn't make the game any more challenging or fun for the other people at the table - and yes, that includes the DM.
Or I suppose the DM could line a corridor with level 8 alchemists pelting a high-level party with these things if they tried to argue this. Even minmaxing their touch AC, one is going to get through eventually.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I don't like no save effects that last longer than a round, especially so if there is no spell to remove their effect. Such spells and effects trivialize encounters and ruin my time as a DM.
I allow the confusion spell or effect to be removed by calm emotions. I understand that option is not available to everyone because other DMs interpret calm emotions differently than I do. I would prefer a save be allowed. I hope the rules team gets on this quickly, because arguments between DMs and players over rules like this are very annoying.
GMs not allowing calm emotions to remove confusion are changing the spell description:
This spell automatically suppresses (but does not dispel) any morale bonuses granted by spells such as bless, good hope, and rage, and also negates a bard's ability to inspire courage or a barbarian's rage ability. It also suppresses any fear effects and removes the confused condition from all targets. While the spell lasts, a suppressed spell, condition, or effect has no effect. When the calm emotions spell ends, the original spell or effect takes hold of the creature again, provided that its duration has not expired in the meantime.
(emphasis mine) It explicitly stops confused.
Personally, I don't see confusion as a 'save or suck' condition. It can be painful, but:
The confused foe has a 50% chance to do something that provides no or minimal assistance\hindrance (25% to act normally, 25% chance to babble). The 'attack nearest creature' can just as easily result in attacking an ally melee combatant, so that one is sort of a wash in the long run. The only outcome that is definitively harmful to the foe's group\helpful to the party is the 'attack self' roll.
Compare this to something like the Sleep Hex, where success allows for a coup de grace. Now that's a save or suck.
Personal opinion: There's nothing wrong with the ability. The problem sounds (to me at least) to be encounter design on the part of the PFS scenarios. Are there really that many encounters where it's just the party versus a solo enemy? If so, then (again, my opinion) the encounters aren't very well-planned.
Not if it hurts the overall health of the game in the process. A single player Being able to instantly deny 75% of an Ancient Dragon or Solar's normal actions with an 8th-level ability doesn't make the game any more challenging or fun for the other people at the table - and yes, that includes the DM.
But it doesn't. It gives a (small) chance to do so.
If the Alchemist successfully hits, assuming that the Ancient Dragon or Solar is the only enemy in the encounter, it's got a 50% chance each round to not be hindered by the ability at all (either it acts normally, or it attacks the closest creature, which would be one of the heroes) and another 25% that gives the party a round to catch its breath. The other 25% of the time is the only time that the condition is going to actively hinder the creature (by forcing it to attack itself).
And then the moment that someone in the party attacks again, the DM stops rolling for confusion effects and the Dragon\Solar begins to attack the hero who attacked him.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The problem sounds (to me at least) to be encounter design on the part of the PFS scenarios. Are there really that many encounters where it's just the party versus a solo enemy?
The vast majority of encounters are against multiple enemies. There's a bit of a trend of caster BBEGs to show up as solo boss fights at the end (*if* it's a scenario with a BBEG, and if that BBEG is a caster). Of course, that means that in the vast majority of significant solo-enemy fights, that single enemy has a bunch of buffs (like mirror image and displacement) that make it harder to stick a touch attack than to stick a SoS spell. Somehow, that never seems to make it into people's analyses.
|
|
Yeah, being "affected by confusion" means your confused. No save as written as many have said.
I'm in the leave it alone camp. It's year 5+_of the PFS, if this was a problem it would have surfaced by this point. Confusion itself is such a situationally "useful" ability and requires so many random chance things to align to matter as others like Xaratherus has pointed out that its usual net result being 2d6 less damage on the creature after the attack.
As an interesting side effect this ability actually makes a tanking option much more functional. Toss a Confusion Bomb at a particular mob and know that it is going to retaliate over written tactics. Everyone wait for tank to swing at the monster to "get aggro" while tossing out some buffs. Sounds like the most powerful thing I can image it doing.
If it was changed to allow a save that would make it pretty much undesirable to almost anyone. It would be more efficient to simply remove it from the book and have that space to clean up other sections rather then actually add text to it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Alchemist successfully hits, assuming that the Ancient Dragon or Solar is the only enemy in the encounter, it's got a 50% chance each round to not be hindered by the ability at all (either it acts normally, or it attacks the closest creature, which would be one of the heroes)
1) As you rightfully pointed out, the "closest creature" might not even be one of the PCs.
2) Even if it lands on "attack" this is still detrimental to the game. Well, first you have to decide what an "attack" is. Does it get to cast an offensive spell, or use an SLA, or does it simply swing? Can it do multiple attacks? Special attacks? Fight defensively? Etc.3) Let's say you rule favorably for the monster and it can cast offensive spells etc. That still means anything that is not an attack can't be done. No summoning backup. No healing or dispelling a bad effect. No retreating. No aiding an ally. No attacking a more distant and much more dangerous threat in the back row - it has to target the nearest creature, whether that is the party fighter or a celestial chimp, and can never go after the caster or the alchemist that very likely caused all this.
4) Even if ALL that wasn't true and attacking the nearest creature is the best possible course of action for the creature, you're still making it waste half its actions. This is like total concealment for the entire party, except it stacks with existing concealment, applies to spells and other specials, and even applies to attempts to retreat. And the reverse is true - if things go south and the monster would normally flee, it has only a 50% chance to pull that off, even if it can teleport etc. It's ridiculous. (Actually, if you attack it, it has NO chance to run or hide etc., since it has to attack its attackers...)
Speaking of Celestial Monkeys - oh look, have the monkey delay its attack until after the entire party has gone. He doesn't even have to hit - he was the last "attacker", the Solar is going after him. For a level 8 ability this is plain ridiculous.
If it was changed to allow a save that would make it pretty much undesirable to almost anyone.
Because having a save (a scaling save at that!) automatically makes it useless, right? That's why no other bomb effect is ever used...
|
|
Because having a save (a scaling save at that!) automatically makes it useless, right? That's why no other bomb effect is ever used...
What bombs are you talking about which are roughly about 25-50% beneficial in most encounters on a failed save, and still deal fire damage with damage reduced by 2 stages?
Seriously just go look at the other bomb effects. I can't say it better then that.
You could be dealing ability damage on failed saves, potentially entangling groups of people or doing force damage + fun. -2d6 Fire Bombs of maybe a buff round if your lucky doesn't need to be made worse.
I had a fairly lengthy response typed out, Psyren, but my browser crashed and I lost it.
Suffice to say that my own anecdotal evidence doesn't show that this power is even in the same zip code as other so-called 'save or suck' abilities.
At most I've had two encounters (out of 25-30 in that game) that were 'railroaded' by an Alchemist with Confusion Bomb; in probably 10 of those, because of the luck of the dice on rolling confusion effects, it made no major difference to the outcome of the encounter.
If I had to choose against a Sleep Hex (with a possibility to save - assuming the Witch was built around it, and therefore had a challenging save DC; I use this because it's a frequent 'save or suck' complaint recipient) or a Confusion Bomb without a possible save, I would choose to face the Confusion Bomb the majority of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this ability has no save, it’s badly broken. It doesn’t take much imagination to find ways to make each and every encounter auto-win.
I think what a lot of people are missing is that it means almost complete battlefield control. Let me give you some examples.
The idea that only targeting one enemy is as good as hitting everyone in a 15ft radius seems like a flimsy myth to me.
If there are multiple enemies, they’re no threat to us anyway since they’ll have trouble hitting us and doing damage in general. Plus there are tonnes of tactics to use on them. Besides, AE damage is what alchemists do best.
If you hit the boss and he has lots of minions, then it gives you time to kill the minions while the boss has a 25% chance to act. Also the boss will probably end up killing a lot of minions (attacking the closest creature).
If there are 2-3 bosses of equal strength, you can hit one of them with the bomb while killing the other. Again, if you position yourself right they could end up attacking their allies.
If it’s a solo boss, it can:
- Give you time to move out of the way and buff up. Or move up to the boss.
- Give you time to heal up while no one attacks. 50% reduction in DPS is significant.
- Force the target to attack only targets that attack him (ignoring squishies who just wish to heal or buff or dispel). You can control this from round to round (if someone is really hurt).
- Prevent the boss from escaping or being strategic (if you attack him he is forced to attack the attacker).
I’d say that’s potent. Maybe you can’t abuse that, but I’m pretty sure that could be ridiculous with a strategic group.
The idea that this becomes overpowered once the alchemist also has Fast Bombs (10th level) seems like a flimsy myth to me.
You’re right, it doesn’t make a huge difference, but probably not for the reasons you think. As you’ve seen in the example above, it would only really help if there were 3-4 equally powerful bosses, but then again if you can take 1 boss out of the combat each round while focusing on another, the combat is still quite simple at even 1 bomb per round.
The idea that it's a fair comparison to give the alchemist 10th-level abilities, factor in range penalties and cover/concealment, and throw some buffs on him; then compare him to what a caster can do as a standard action from 200ft away without even using their highest-level spells, seems like a flimsy myth to me.
The idea that all those caster BBEGs I've faced with mirror image and displacement up would be more likely to fail a save than to take a direct hit through all their defenses seems like a flimsy myth to me.
If you cast True Strike (ignores concealment), close your eyes (ignores mirror image), and throw your bomb none of your defenses matter.
Also, you’re assuming the enemy is a high level spellcaster now, but in my experience those encounters are rare compared to everything else.
In summary, I’m pretty sure this ability has a good chance of taking out even a Runelord like Krune, making him an easy target. :)
I'd also say —I guess it would maybe be a houserule?— that spell immunity would still function vs this ability even if you were to rule that there's no saving throw.
As already mentioned, this ability isn't a spell. In addition it's a supernatural ability meaning it immune to everything that would normally effect spells (like spell resistance, dispels, anti-magic, globe of invulnerability, etc). Just a touch attack is needed.
The design team isn't in the habit of taking the time to state "this does exactly what it says it does", so I wouldn't hold my breath for anything more explicit than what we got two years ago.
Except when people question how its written "this functions as written" is a complete non answer. You continually assume that the rules are a lot clearer than they are and that anyone that disagrees with you MUST be doing so dishonestly.
If it means no save then typing in "no save" would be faster.
"Answered in the faq" should mean that when you track down the faq there should be something there about it.
|
|
Personally, I don't see confusion as a 'save or suck' condition. It can be painful, but:
The confused foe has a 50% chance to do something that provides no or minimal assistance\hindrance (25% to act normally, 25% chance to babble). The 'attack nearest creature' can just as easily result in attacking an ally melee combatant, so that one is sort of a wash in the long run. The only outcome that is definitively harmful to the foe's group\helpful to the party is the 'attack self' roll.
Compare this to something like the Sleep Hex, where success allows for a coup de grace. Now that's a save or suck.
Personal opinion: There's nothing wrong with the ability. The problem sounds (to me at least) to be encounter design on the part of the PFS scenarios. Are there really that many encounters where it's just the party versus a solo enemy? If so, then (again, my opinion) the encounters aren't very well-planned.
Not if it hurts the overall health of the game in the process. A single player Being able to instantly deny 75% of an Ancient Dragon or Solar's normal actions with an 8th-level ability doesn't make the game any more challenging or fun for the other people at the table - and yes, that includes the DM.But it doesn't. It gives a (small) chance to do so.
If the Alchemist successfully hits, assuming that the Ancient Dragon or Solar is the only enemy in the encounter, it's got a 50% chance each round to not be hindered by the ability at all (either it acts normally, or it attacks the closest creature, which would be one of the heroes) and another 25% that gives the party a round to catch its breath. The other 25% of the time is the only time that the condition is going to actively hinder the creature (by forcing it to attack itself).
And then the moment that someone in the party attacks again, the DM stops rolling for confusion effects and the Dragon\Solar begins to attack the hero who attacked him.
You are forgetting a few things, like:
- no AoO against any target that isn't the current target;- treat all creatures as hostile, so he get a saving throw against beneficial spell and refuse friendly spell (like dimension door used to escape);
- even "better", as he treat all creatures as hostile, the friend trying to use Calm emotion (or any other beneficial spell that target the confused creature) count as attacking him. so if he make his saving throw he will attack his friend;
- the confused creature attack the last creature that attacked it. No thought about defense, cure, protection. With two character with ranged attacks against a confused creature that use melee attacks you can even play "ping-pong against it, denying it all its attack. Character A attack at range, character B move some distance away and ready an action to attack the creature when it is just outside its attack reach from character A. When it is the creature turn it move to attack A, but it is attacked by B before engaging him. B become the last creature that attacked the confused creature, so if change target and move toward B. If the character are far apart enough it will not have a standard action left to attack B when and if it reach him. Rinse and repeat, the creature will be unable to do anything beside moving between A and B position.
It is very easy to shut down a confused creature that use only melee attack, relatively easy to shut down one that cast spell as it will think only of offense. The least affected creatures are those with ranged attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except when people question how its written "this functions as written" is a complete non answer. You continually assume that the rules are a lot clearer than they are and that anyone that disagrees with you MUST be doing so dishonestly.
The design team isn't in the habit of taking the time to state "this does exactly what it says it does", so I wouldn't hold my breath for anything more explicit than what we got two years ago.
Honestly, I don't think there's anything unclear about the rules in this case. I just think the Rules-As-Written are say something that a lot of people don't like, to the point of thinking it must be a mistake or needs to be changed.
Honestly, I don't think there's anything unclear about the rules in this case. I just think the Rules-As-Written are say something that a lot of people don't like, to the point of thinking it must be a mistake or needs to be changed.
Its clear as mud to me. Is it applying confusion the spell or is it applying confusion the condition? Your argument simply isn't good enough to warrant questioning peoples reading ability or honesty to see it the other way.
I agree that it's unclear, but the part you mentioned isn't the unclear part. It quite clearly applies the confusion spell as per the discovery's description. It doesn't say "as if affected by a confusion spell" or anything similar, so I don't think there's really any wiggle room to say otherwise.
You lost me. I can't figure out if you're pro save or anti save. (looking up at other posts it seems pro save)
I really hate the "as if" something else pathfinder relies on. It gets hard to figure out how it does or doesn't function like the thing that its like.
|
|
- treat all creatures as hostile, so he get a saving throw against beneficial spell and refuse friendly spell (like dimension door used to escape);
- even "better", as he treat all creatures as hostile, the friend trying to use Calm emotion (or any other beneficial spell that target the confused creature) count as attacking him. so if he make his saving throw he will attack his friend;As far as I know, the rules/description don't actually specify that. It would be a house rule to do so. The one case I would see is if the caster is the target for the confused creature for that round, but even then it's iffy.
For a related, but not certainly transferrable precedent/example, creatures get saving throws against harmful substances even if they think they're beneficial. Under that context, the fact that the character think the caster is good or bad shouldn't have an impact on whether they'd want to save or not. Confusion also doesn't state that all people are considered bad/hostile anyway though.
Confused: A confused creature is mentally befuddled and cannot act normally. A confused creature cannot tell the difference between ally and foe, treating all creatures as enemies.
Pretty clear, don't you think?
- the confused creature attack the last creature that attacked it.This is a bit strange since the confusion spell doesn't mention that, but the confusion condition does. I'd personally house rule that the confused target would attack one of any of the targets which attacked him in the last round (the closest, random, or DM's choice— doesn't matter much which) and hence overrule the part that the confused condition describes. Even if that wasn't the case though, playing ping-pong with creatures seems far too meta-gamey. It's relying on specific abuse of held actions combined with detailed knowledge of creature's behavior while under a spell. To characters I would think confusion is probably supposed to be an random and unpredictable behavior, not a "OK guys I know he'll have a a 25% chance of hitting himself in the head" sort of thing.
So people with spellcraft in the 20-30 points range don't know how the spell they cast work?
I disagree.It is not much different from Spanish-style bullfighting, with helper distracting the bull when it start to be dangerous.
The difference is that in the real world after a time even the bull start to realize what is happening and focus on a single target, a confused creature can't.
|
|
Seriously just go look at the other bomb effects. I can't say it better then that.
Which other bomb automatically denies 75% of the target's meaningful actions with no save?
If I had to choose against a Sleep Hex (with a possibility to save - assuming the Witch was built around it, and therefore had a challenging save DC; I use this because it's a frequent 'save or suck' complaint recipient) or a Confusion Bomb without a possible save, I would choose to face the Confusion Bomb the majority of the time.
I would take the Sleep every time. Not only is it save negates, but once you hit them they are immune for 24 hours. Ally wakes them up - the witch is still happy because two enemies lost their turns to one of hers, DM is happy because the encounter wasn't trivialized. Everybody wins. And if they make the save, well, the Witch tried, and Slumber is still widely regarded as one of the most powerful hexes in the game even with that.
Confusion Bomb gets none of that. Even if they land on "act normally" every single time, there's still the inability to take AoOs on secondary targets, the need to attack their last attacker, the treating allies as foes - none of that needs to be rolled for at all. And they only have a 25% chance of achieving those "benefits" - every other option is even worse.
50% DPR loss is huge, and a savvy party can easily make it 75% by having a summon or something else inconsequential take the last hit. And if the alchemist confuses two monsters, and they attack each other - it's an endless loop, the party can leave the room and not worry.
Confusion bomb needs a ranged touch attack and only affects 1 target.
Confusion spell allows a save but affects a whole bunch of creatures.
Both spend limited resources.
They're pretty much on par, IMHO. If one deserves to be nerfed, then so does the other. It's a heavy debuff to a single enemy. There are dozens of spells that do the same to multiple enemies.
Hell, Confusion Bomb is not even more powerful than an archer's full attack. How does it "trivialize" a whole encounter? Are encounters made of a single enemy? Because if that's the case, the encounter is already trivial. Action economy will destroy the opponents more effectively than any class feature alone.
I don't like no save effects that last longer than a round, especially so if there is no spell to remove their effect. Such spells and effects trivialize encounters and ruin my time as a DM.
I allow the confusion spell or effect to be removed by calm emotions. I understand that option is not available to everyone because other DMs interpret calm emotions differently than I do. I would prefer a save be allowed. I hope the rules team gets on this quickly, because arguments between DMs and players over rules like this are very annoying.
GMs not allowing calm emotions to remove confusion are changing the spell description:
This spell automatically suppresses (but does not dispel) any morale bonuses granted by spells such as bless, good hope, and rage, and also negates a bard's ability to inspire courage or a barbarian's rage ability. It also suppresses any fear effects and removes the confused condition from all targets. While the spell lasts, a suppressed spell, condition, or effect has no effect. When the calm emotions spell ends, the original spell or effect takes hold of the creature again, provided that its duration has not expired in the meantime.(emphasis mine) It explicitly stops confused.
I go with that method. But some DMs tie it with the rest of the text and only allow it to suppress it on a missed save. They also argue that the Confused condition and the confusion spell are two different effects. The reality is that I can't completely argue against either argument given the inexact nature of the entirety of the spell description.
At some point I would love Paizo to take the time to do a game clean up. Ask the community to put forth every unclear piece of rules text (I mean truly unclear) and tie it all together within the context of the game rules better than they have done right now. As well as clean up a bunch of spells that have effects that need to be looked at and tested in encounters. If the spell trivializes some percentage of encounters set by the game designers, it gets changed.
Sometimes game rules reach a size and scope that requires some vetting of confusing or unintended rules that occur when combined with other rules and the like. I think Paizo would strengthen their game by doing a clean up every once in a while. Every game probably would benefit from doing so.
confusion isn't nearly as bad as other effects. A confusion bomb can be used tactically to focus aggro since attacking the creature causes it to relentlessly come after you. It is definitely powerful crowd control if used against a group of creatures. Against a single BBEG it has far less of an effect.
|
|
Calm emotion require a saving throw to remove the confused condition (the target is hostile to you, so not willing). The spell don't say that it counter and dispel confusion, it ray that it remove the condition. To do that it need to be effective on the target, as it is a spell with a save it require a failed save to be effective.
The confusion spell, as explained above, should impose the confused condition. Lesser confusion link it, confusion don't but it is fairly clear that they have the same effect.