| 142 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet. These are ranged touch attacks. Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard's Charisma bonus (Fortitude half), and the bard chooses whether it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage for each word. This performance replaces suggestion.
Side note: The ability should probably also call out Wierd Words as being a sonic/sound based effect.
Intent? My own comments here - Ignore if desired.
If I read it with my "intent" glasses on, it would appear that it is missing a restriction that "each creature may be targeted by no more than X Wierd Words", where X is probably 1. Balance wise, X being 2 or 3 would still be fine, but that would be odd since there are very few (if any) abilities in the game that allow you to deal multiple times an ability modifier in damage that is not strength.
Did the author intend a 10th level bard to be able to deal 10d8 + 10 * Cha Mod in damage? Sure, you have to hit with 10 ranged touch attacks and some will miss, and sure the monster gets 10 saves, and he'll make some... But what GM wants to wait for a player to roll TEN d20's, then EIGHT d8's, then make EIGHT fortitude saves for a creature, trying to keep track of which of the 8 to 15 points of damage you reduced by half before totaling them all up...
EDIT: Post number 7.
Whether or not it's overpowered is immaterial. It's a badly written ability that needs to get re-done. The fact that it can require 30 die rolls is just absurd in its own right.
Yeah that definitely needs cleaning up. The "each sound affecting one target within 30 feet," could be read as all 10 of the attacks for one target, or as each attack must be used against separate targets depending on how you're looking at it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather FAQ a post not so heavily biased against having all the words hitting one target. Because having to hit 10 different creatures, each with a ranged touch for a piddly 1d8 + cha damage and a save for half (on top of having to hit) *and* it's subject to damage reduction is godawfulhorrible.
If you'd just like them to clarify that a creature always rolls 1 save for half damage regardless of whether it's hit once or 8 times or whatever to speed up the game, I'm fine with that.
This has been FAQd before, I hope they address it this time as the number of dice rolls is annoying and the rules are unclear.
Oh and I'll just leave this here: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2opvt?Sound-Striker-Revisited
Rolling a handful of d8 is annoying? Or the moderately easy saving throw? Is there only one of each die at the table?
It's nice, but Stream is right about there just being too much going against it to make it too strong against a single opponent.
Keep in mind that this ability replaces suggestions, which is one of the lesser used bardic performances (as I've seen), and it's use costs 1 round of bardic performance, but does equivalent damage to a fireball striking 3 enemies. Yes, it has a range limitation, and yes, you have to hit with the touch attacks, but it's variable damage type is an advantage in most cases.
Really, the biggest problem (and the reason I know something is wrong) is that there are no other abilities in the game that allow dealing 10 times a casting stat modifier in damage on a single standard action... At least not that I'm aware of.
Also, yes, this has been FAQ'd a few other times, but was marked "unclear question" at least once. Hence, I made my question clear. It may be a bit biased, but I'm sure the developers can see through it well enough to make a fair ruling.
Rolling a handful of d8 is annoying? Or the moderately easy saving throw? Is there only one of each die at the table?
Most of my players don't have 10 different colors of d20's and 10 matching d8's, which means you're rolling at least a few different times. Then the process of the DM rolling saves to reduce each one individually is silly.
Even if you believe that it's perfectly acceptable, power wise, it wouldn't hurt to have it clarified that each target makes a single save, or that all wierd words directed at a single enemy use a single ranged attack roll, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not it's overpowered is immaterial. It's a badly written ability that needs to get re-done. The fact that it can require 30 die rolls is just absurd in its own right.
Whether or not it's overpowered is immaterial. It's a badly written ability that needs to get re-done. The fact that it can require 30 die rolls is just absurd in its own right.
I'm mostly OK with 30 die rolls if they're all just summed up (you can do that with a dice rolling program if necessary in an instant), but 20 d20 rolls to check against different target numbers is pretty harsh.
Whether or not it's overpowered is immaterial. It's a badly written ability that needs to get re-done. The fact that it can require 30 die rolls is just absurd in its own right.
Written just in time to get added into the original post as an edit. AKA - I couldn't have said it any better than this if I tried.
With a +7 BAB, a dex of 16-18(you are ranged/finesse after all to make this actually work stat wise), and normal buffs, you're also looking at a 80% chance to hit. So bring that damage down to 64-65ish. If you have DR/material, alignment, etc of at least 5 (which many at this point do) take 40-50 of that back off.
True that the DR is a problem at times, but the range of 30 feet and the fact that it's a standard action means even if the enemy has DR 5/Adamantium, you're still doing close to the same damage as a 2hf power attacking fighter would if he only get a single attack. 2hf fighters don't always get full attacks.
Not to mention the fact that with the bard restriction to single performance type/round, and that this is always a standard regardless of the requirements for his inspire courage action, he gives up his party buffs to do it.
There's virtuoso performance, shadow bard, and even the old 3.5e harmonic performance feat. (Names may not all be right.) 10th level is right about the time that being able to overcome the one song per round restriction comes into play. Not to mention that you should be able to activate Wierd Words as a standard action, then switch to Inspire Courage as a move action afterwards. Unless I'm missing some limitation.
A single 2hf power attacking barb/fighter should be doing close 30pts/swing with only their +3 weapon buff, and a ranger/paladin with the right enemy will be doing doing 40-50.
Should a bard capable of buffing up the party (inspire courage, haste, good hope, etc.), casting lots of fun enchantment spells, and being the knowledge monk/party face also be capable of dealing comparable damage to a fighter who could be assumed to miss with one of his three attacks fairly frequently?
This comes up about every couple months for the last year... people...
Then doesn't it qualify as a "frequently asked question"? So far, the other threads I have found got substandard responses due to not having a single specific question. Hence why hitting FAQ on this one is a good idea. If indeed, the design team marks it "no reply required" then next time this comes up, you can link this thread and put it to bed completely.
This is a question I've seen come up many, many times. A lot more often than some of the questions I've seen answered in the FAQs lately, but that's at no fault of the design team. Ya'll just FAQ the wrong stuff :)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Intent?
In non-PFS games I change it to be very much like fireball:
1) Doesn't require a hit save for half2) Can target only once per target, all within range of Bard
I'd rather FAQ a post not so heavily biased
If you state both sides (pro and con), they tend to respond "no reply required" from my experience. So phrasing it definitive pro or con is better. You should still FAQ if you care about the issue, as they won't be swayed by the way the question is phrases. They will answer they intended way the rule should be read.
In my experience, that's not really the case. The posts I make for FAQs show both sides, and they tend to get answered pretty often.
First, I don't see how it could be read in any other way than allowing all ten to hit one guy. And no, I don't think it's overpowered because DR ruins it and using it cancels your ongoing musical buffs. Plus, Thundercaller is more dangerous since they can (scaling!) Sound Burst as a move, and later, swift, action.
Second, I also don't like FAQing biased posts like this, especially when the position I disagree with (which has no evidence, by the way) is the one focused on.
Third, it is tedious to roll 30 times for one action, and I agree, it needs to be changed. But needing a change does not mean it's unclear. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I don't see how it could be read in any other way than allowing all ten to hit one guy.Then your understanding of the word "each" is incomplete.
Each sound hits one target. If all 10 sounds hit the same guy, they've each only hit one target.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Each sound hits one target. If all 10 sounds hit the same guy, they've each only hit one target.First, I don't see how it could be read in any other way than allowing all ten to hit one guy.Then your understanding of the word "each" is incomplete.
That statement is true. So is this one:
If each of the 10 notes hits a different target, then they've still each only hit one target.You don't see how it could be read that way?
Additionally, if each note hits the same target, then it would be more correct for the ability to use "all" instead of "each", or to leave out both words entirely.
In non-PFS games I change it to be very much like fireball:
1) Doesn't require a hit save for half
2) Can target only once per target, all within range of Bard
In a home game, I would also change it in a pretty big way. At the very least, I would require only a single hit and a single save to half the damage. I would also probably remove the whole 10 * Charisma Modifier to damage as there is no precedent for it in any other ability.
I also don't like FAQing biased posts like this, especially when the position I disagree with (which has no evidence, by the way) is the one focused on.
My own comments here - Ignore if desired.
I suppose I could have put that into a second post rather than the OP, but I'm relatively sure that the guys at Paizo can read the question, ignore my bias, and give a good answer to the question:
"Is the Weird Words ability working as intended with the current wording?"
Third, it is tedious to roll 30 times for one action, and I agree, it needs to be changed. But needing a change does not mean it's unclear. ;)
It means that it needs a change, and the FAQ process is the best way to drive this change that we have available.
That statement is true. So is this one:
If each of the 10 notes hits a different target, then they've still each only hit one target.
You don't see how it could be read that way?Additionally, if each note hits the same target, then it would be more correct for the ability to use "all" instead of "each", or to leave out both words entirely.
I think you misunderstood my statement. Of course each sound can hit a different target. It's just not required. The two options are:
1) All 10 sounds can hit the same target
2) None of the 10 sounds can hit the same target as any other
I cannot see how it could be read such that #2 is the case, thus, I don't see how it could be read in any way but the one that allows all ten to hit the same guy.
I cannot see how it could be read in any way but the one that allows all ten to hit the same guy.
I read it the same way you do and thus, an unprecedented 10 times Charisma Modifier in damage is possible. I do not like this fact and believe that the ability requires a modification. What that modification is and how it is achieved, I will leave the fine guys over at Paizo.
But the question I have is this: Does anyone believe that the potential 10 times Charisma Modifier in damage was intended?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey everyone! It's almost as if this rule can be read in two different, and equally valid!, ways!
So just FAQ the thread so we the PDT can take this question out back and shoot it in the head, rather than have it pop up again every 4 weeks.
|
|
I think it should be one word per 2 bard levels, max 10. This would bring it roughly in line with an Alchemist's bombs, which are also a limited/day supernatural ability. Thus when you're 10th level it would be 5*(1d8+Cha) instead of 10*(1d8+Cha) which is still useful without being unreasonable.
EDIT: FAQ pressed
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
First, I don't see how it could be read in any other way than allowing all ten to hit one guy.
The secondary bolts each strike one target and deal as much damage as the primary bolt
Similar wording to this Bard ability. So can you stack up multiple hits on the Secondary Targets to deal more to one Secondary than to the Primary?
Yes, you could. Wait, no, they added a line "no target can be struck more than once." Do you think they intended to put a line like this in there and forgot? Do you think they wrote it assuming that because the wording is similar to other effects that are limited that they didn't feel the need to put in the limiter?
If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures.
In this case they avoided the "each strike one target" language all together, and went with clear verbiage.
|
First, I don't see how it could be read in any other way than allowing all ten to hit one guy.The secondary bolts each strike one target and deal as much damage as the primary boltSimilar wording to this Bard ability. So can you stack up multiple hits on the Secondary Targets to deal more to one Secondary than to the Primary?
Yes, you could. Wait, no, they added a line "no target can be struck more than once." Do you think they intended to put a line like this in there and forgot? Do you think they wrote it assuming that because the wording is similar to other effects that are limited that they didn't feel the need to put in the limiter?
If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures.In this case they avoided the "each strike one target" language all together, and went with clear verbiage.
So, you think the ability should be so completely nerfed, by not allowing any more than one word to affect one target, that it is even more worthless than uit has been pointed out as being?
How often, even at 10+ level, do you have a combat with 10 or more opponents?
And, since they didn't add the proviso that it can only target each creature once, what makes you think that it could only target a creature once?
Heck, if the bard is in a threatened area, does it provoke once, or once per word?
Only being able to target a creature once per use of Weird Words would be horrendous, making something tyhat is weak into something that would be better changed into a once per day ability, since that is about how often it would have any use.
"I have ten Weird Words, but there is only one opponent. Like 1d8+Z, if I even hit with it, and it doesn't make a Fort save, is going to do anything noticeable? Oh, and everyone loses the +2 (or more) to hit and damage that I can provide for the same resource cost."
Um, yeah. Let's just use an intensified Snowball, instead.
Hey everyone! It's almost as if this rule can be read in two different, and equally valid!, ways!
So just FAQ the thread so we the PDT can take this question out back and shoot it in the head, rather than have it pop up again every 4 weeks.
Actually, the original poster just confirmed that there are not two different, equally valid ways to read it. There is only one way to read it, but it's stupid, so apparently, we are FAQing rules we dislike now.
Can I FAQ something like, "Did you intend to make the trap system boring and tedious?" Where do we draw the line?
Like I said, I'm not opposed to fixing the ability. It really is poor designed. But I feel like this undermines the FAQ system. FAQs are supposed to explain how ambiguous rules actually work, not to complain about dumb ones that are written perfectly clearly. I guess I'm concerned about the precedent this sets. Something just doesn't sit right.
]Actually, the original poster just confirmed that there are not two different, equally valid ways to read it. There is only one way to read it, but it's stupid, so apparently, we are FAQing rules we dislike now.
Oh, so you and the OP are the ones who confirm how every other person in the world could possibly read that statement, despite the fact that there are people in this thread who claim to have read it the other way?
I honestly can't understand how you can't see how it could be read both ways,and I honestly did originally read it as each sound only affects 1 target (as in no two sounds affect the same target). The fact that people are even discussing it like this suggests it could be read both ways.
FAQ'd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the original poster just confirmed that there are not two different, equally valid ways to read it.
Actually, what I said was:
I read it the same way you do
Which just means that you and I agree on it's reading, not that "it's the only way to read it."
So apparently, we are FAQing rules we dislike now. Can I FAQ something like, "Did you intend to make the trap system boring and tedious?" Where do we draw the line?
Look at it this way, we are FAQing a rule might have had a sentence removed during editing (similar to the Eagle Shaman and the Roc). It's no different than most FAQs, save the fact that I worded my question very aggressively towards the fact that rolling 30 dice for a single standard action (none of which are totaled) is pretty obviously too many. Whether you like the ability or not, it's hard for anyone to say it's working as intended. Both the amount of dice rolls required and the potential 10 times Charisma Modifier in damage are completely unprecedented.
If you want to challenge WHY I have FAQ'd this (and worded my question so aggressively), then how me examples of both of the following:
1) Another ability where a single standard action can cause a realistic possibility of 30 different dice rolls in the same round, none of which are totaled.
2) Another ability that allows 10 times a casting stat modifier in damage.
Note: PC abilities only.
Yeah this ability is a mess. But too strong? Not even close. Just a mess.
You are focusing way to much on needless details. How many times you add X means nothing compared how it functions in reality. In reality it's middling at best.
The idea that something is wrongbad because no other ability does something like it does. That's called unique and its not the only unique ability in the game by any means.
Still I would love for it to get cleaned up because as is I would never use it or let it be used do to how much it would slow the game down.
BS, look at Blistering Invective (my favourite spell btw), you roll 1-all creatures in 30ft intimidate checks, then same amount of d10s and then they all reflex to not catch fire. Lazy freakers.
BS, look at Blistering Invective (my favourite spell btw), you roll 1-all creatures in 30ft intimidate checks, then same amount of d10s and then they all reflex to not catch fire. Lazy freakers.
I love that spell as well but comparing it here is a bit off. No one will have 30+ uses of that a day. This on the other hand can (and often is.) used every round.
Disintegrate Spell: 11th level stats
• First available at 11th level
• Useable between 1 and 4 times per day
• Requires a ranged touch attack
• Allows a fortitude save
• Subject to spell resistance
• 2d6 damage per caster level - 77 average damage on a failed save
• Successful save reduces average damage to 18.
Wierd Words Ability: 10th level stats, (modest) +6 Cha modifier
• First available at 6th level
• Useable 30+ times per day
• Requires ranged touch attacks
• Allows fortitude saves
• Subject to damage reduction
• 1d8 + 6 damage per caster level - 105 damage on (admittedly) a lot of failed saves
• Successful saves reduces average damage to 50.
That's nice. Save for the fact you left out how even the most minor DR kills the damage and the MUCH higher chance for misses since there are so many roles.
Again you are focused to much on a few details you are over stating rather then its use in reality.
Or leave out the fact that unlike spells it can be metamagiced. Also you could compare it to a better spell.
That's nice. Save for the fact you left out how even the most minor DR kills the damage and the MUCH higher chance for misses since there are so many roles.
It's true that DR 5 reduces the damage from Wierd Words to zero on a made save. But a single spell resistance check could cause the same problem for Disintegrate.
And yes, with that many ranged attack rolls, some will miss, but that's really just evening out the randomness, which IMO is a positive. A single 1 rolled on disintegrate results in zero damage.
Again you are focused to much on a few details you are over stating rather then its use in reality.
I listed about all the relevent stats for both abilities. In my opinion, it is a fair comparison.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright guys, at this level of FAQs, it's near the top. Pack it up and go home guys. I hear there's a paladin / player entitlement thread that needs a swarm of activity.
:)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
something that is weak
what makes you think that it could only target a creature once?
bard is in a threatened area ... once per word?
If you think it is weak as it is now, then I don't know what to say. Other than you can't beat it with any other ability.
I already detailed a very compelling reason it was written to indicate it is one word per target. If you had read my last post.
It without a doubt provokes per word even if you could target the same target with more than one word.
I honestly can't understand how you can't see how it could be read both ways
It is the permissive vs non-permissive thing. Some people go with the "if the rule doesn't say I can't then I can" way of thinking. I don't think the rules are always written in a way that this is reasonable. Often they will include limiters, but they can't limit everything. So if you read all rules in a permissive way then you gain a lot more power/freedom/etc from a rule set.
As is, anyone with any real experience with levels past 7 knows that it is a minimal damage ability.
I can't come up with another ability that allows me to 72 to 145 damage a round (if all on one target is allowed) for 29 rounds or more.
DC 23 Save +16 to hit
(11.5*12*.95+.05*11.5*12*2)*.5
Translates into "miss only on a 1 for 99% of monsters" they save only on a 10 on the d20.
I love that spell as well but comparing it here is a bit off. No one will have 30+ uses of that a day. This on the other hand can (and often is.) used every round.
Elf takes out sack of what looks like pebbles and turn it upside down. You see 30 runestones of power scatter across the floor as he shouts "Challenge accepted!"
It needs to be less dice rolled, there should be one attack and one save per target. Other than the number of dice rolled to use the ability, it's fine.
I agree with the above.
It is my opinion that the ability should also limit adding Charisma modifier to damage only once per target. This would bring it in line with other similar abilities. Alternatively, if this was too much of a reduction, it would also make sense for the ability to add caster level to damage instead of Charisma modifier. Again, with the limitation that it can only be applied once per target.
Since only giving one save and one attack roll per target means that (likely) the damages are being added together, this significantly reduces the effectiveness of DR against the ability. Thus removing the multiple additions of a casting stats is something I would deem an acceptable tradeoff.
Just my 2 cp though. As I've said plenty of times, my opinions are just that, my opinions - feel free to disagree.
That's nice. Save for the fact you left out how even the most minor DR kills the damage and the MUCH higher chance for misses since there are so many roles.It's true that DR 5 reduces the damage from Wierd Words to zero on a made save. But a single spell resistance check could cause the same problem for Disintegrate.
And yes, with that many ranged attack rolls, some will miss, but that's really just evening out the randomness, which IMO is a positive. A single 1 rolled on disintegrate results in zero damage.
Again you are focused to much on a few details you are over stating rather then its use in reality.I listed about all the relevent stats for both abilities. In my opinion, it is a fair comparison.
Its really starting to feel like you have an agenda here. You are constantly leaving out very important facts of this being used in real play. DR is FAR FAR FAR (you get the point yet?) more common then DR. SR has feats to help overcome it. There is no such feat to help this ability ot overcome DR.
Saying SR is in any way at all an equal mitigation vs spells as DR is to this ability is nothing short of being willfully misleading.
There are feats to get around DR like penetrating strike and weapon enhancement makes Dr useless at a certain point, though they Don't apply to WW cause it's not technically a weapon...
My 2p, it should be allowed to hit one person. It's honestly not that good otherwise. As pointed out, the Dr hurts, bad. Much worse than SR will for a full caster. Cause it applies even on a failed save. If you're averaging 10.5 dmg a hit and they have Dr 5 you only do 5.5. If they save half the time atop of that... You're doing about the same dmg as the fighter who is only getting one hit with a great sword and power attacking(2d6 + 21). Are fighters suddenly overpowered?
I will FAQ though cause it need a some clarification.
Bard can choose damage type, overcoming DR/bludgeoning, DR/piercing and DR/slashing - types even +5 weapon cant overcome.
Its really starting to feel like you have an agenda here. You are constantly leaving out very important facts of this being used in real play. DR is FAR FAR FAR (you get the point yet?) more common then SR. SR has feats to help overcome it. There is no such feat to help this ability ot overcome DR.
Saying SR is in any way at all an equal mitigation vs spells as DR is to this ability is nothing short of being willfully misleading.
There's no reason to take an adversarial tone. (If one is being taken. Due to the medium of text, it's hard to tell, so forgive me if I'm misreading the situation). I am simply trying to have a productive discussion about the ability.
Let's be clear that my opinion is only just that. I'm pretty sure I've said that at least three times in this thread already (including the OP). Please don't confuse my agenda of getting a ability that is poorly worded with my opinion that the ability is too good when you consider when you give up to get it.
Agenda: Answer the original question: "Is this ability currently working as intended?"
My Opinion: The ability is more powerful than it should be, considering what you are giving up for it (the entire archetype gives up suggestion and inspire competance only) versus what you are getting in return - an ability who's damage is similar (if not superior to) the (6th level) Disintegrate spell. Is it the most overpowered ability in the game, no, it's far from it.
As for the concern about DR - Yes, the ability has it's limitations. DR is going to cause problems. (And yes, it can be said that DR is worse for this ability than SR is for disintegrate.). It is, however, more useful by a mile than suggestion and inspire competance. Also, the fact is that a bard with this ability would not need to use it on an enemy with DR as he could choose to use his 30+ rounds a day on inspire courage at that point.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
(2d8+16) x4 ... another 8 rounds.
Not even remotely in the same power level.
2d8+16 < 75 average (including misses) and it needs to roll vs AC so the average will be less than 12. Must make it past DR too but is harder to pick damage type.
Plus that takes a spell and you don't have 29 SM6 in a day.
If you don't see this, I'm not sure I can ever convince you.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
james, he said cyclops because they have the 1/day ability to declare a roll to be a 20. So that first his is a hit and most likely a crit for an average of 100 damage...then it does its second attack and still exists for the rest of the spell's duration.
Cyclops is usually the best summon nature's ally choice for that reason.
He still has to confirm that hit for 100 damage if it confirms. The average will be 62 which is less than the Bard average AND it burns a level 5 spell slot.
Seriously someone believes these remotely compare?