Snowball Errata Status?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Arcane Trickster approved.


This spell is actually pretty goodon the Druid list. It give the druid a cheap damage dealing spell that can be used as a base for metamgic spells. The thing that is great is that it makes Spell Focus(Conjuration) into not just a feat tax.

If there is a fix to be made it would be to half the damage progression. This way it would lose some power around lvl4-5 when it really shines, the power falls really quickly after that.


Majuba wrote:
Whenever I GM snowball is incredibly powerful - it acts as a hideous laughter on all the enemies as they laugh themselves silly at the caster.

Interesting.

I give the same effect when a straight, non Archetyped monk tries to do anything.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Good, not too good. About par for course for 1st level spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Bell wrote:
Good, not too good. About par for course for 1st level spells.

Demonstrably false. As has been shown in this very thread.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

That's a matter of opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Bell wrote:
That's a matter of opinion.

It's really not.

It goes above and beyond the accepted norms of 1st level spells.

Touch Attack.
No SR.
No Save for Damage
D6/level
Save against Status Effect that is one of the nastier ones.

All in one.

Let's compare to some other spells

Magic Missle, Auto Hit but less damage. SR: Yes, no status effect.

Shocking Grasp, SR: Yes, Same Damage, Melee Touch, and no Status Effect.

Chill Touch, SR: Yes, Lower Damage, Melee Touch, Status Effect with a Save.

Ray of Enfeeblement, SR: Yes, No Damage, Ranged Touch, Status Effect with a Save for half.

Offensive spells by comparison shows that Snowball is significantly better. Changing it so that it doesn't punch through SR for free and lowering the status effect to Fatigued would bring it much more in line with 1st level spells.


Scavion wrote:


Offensive spells by comparison shows that Snowball is significantly better. Changing it so that it doesn't punch through SR for free and lowering the status effect to Fatigued would bring it much more in line with 1st level spells.

I will add that the spell have to be in evocation.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Scavion wrote:


Offensive spells by comparison shows that Snowball is significantly better. Changing it so that it doesn't punch through SR for free and lowering the status effect to Fatigued would bring it much more in line with 1st level spells.

I will add that the spell have to be in evocation.

It should probably be in Evocation though Conjuration junkies will have an issue with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowdweller wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Good, not too good. About par for course for 1st level spells.
Demonstrably false. As has been shown in this very thread.

If it was, and it had, this thread would be over by now.

"Demonstrably false" is one of those terms that does not often apply.


Scavion wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
That's a matter of opinion.

It's really not.

It goes above and beyond the accepted norms of 1st level spells.

Touch Attack.
No SR.
No Save for Damage
D6/level
Save against Status Effect that is one of the nastier ones.

All in one.

Let's compare to some other spells

Magic Missle, Auto Hit but less damage. SR: Yes, no status effect.

Shocking Grasp, SR: Yes, Same Damage, Melee Touch, and no Status Effect.

Chill Touch, SR: Yes, Lower Damage, Melee Touch, Status Effect with a Save.

Ray of Enfeeblement, SR: Yes, No Damage, Ranged Touch, Status Effect with a Save for half.

Offensive spells by comparison shows that Snowball is significantly better. Changing it so that it doesn't punch through SR for free and lowering the status effect to Fatigued would bring it much more in line with 1st level spells.

It may be better than quite a few DAMAGE spells (though I submit Magic Missile is at least as good considering it's auto-hit, Force damage, and has more CONSISTENT damage at 5d4+4 vs 5d6) but it still falls well within the bounds of power of other first level spells like Grease and Color Spray.


Also, it being a ranged attack isn't a total advantage. As someone else mentioned, a melee attack can afford to miss. Missing on a ranged touch attack wastes the whole spell.

At low levels, I'd even say it's not an advantage at all—that it evens out. Later on, it gets more lopsided (touch attacks get easier), but it's still not that big considering you're getting spells like spectral hand.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Also, it being a ranged attack isn't a total advantage. As someone else mentioned, a melee attack can afford to miss. Missing on a ranged touch attack wastes the whole spell.

At low levels, I'd even say it's not an advantage at all—that it evens out. Later on, it gets more lopsided (touch attacks get easier), but it's still not that big considering you're getting spells like spectral hand.

Very true; hitting touch AC is is not especially easy for a low-level wizard. the issue is that if you're up against things out the bestiary, touch AC tends to be close to static or actually scales downwards with level.

Really, it seems like most of the issues with snowball stem from metamagic-boosted versions of it at higher levels. At the levels where you would be using level one spell slots in combat, it's rather underwhelming.


I think it's a shade too powerful for a 1st-level spell. It's actually more powerful than scorching ray at caster levels 4-7! I have a problem with that, especially because I tend to run low-to-medium level games. (We usually top out around level 10-12.)

I've re-written snowball for my home game so that it works more like magic missile. On a successful ranged touch attack, a snowball does 1d6+1 cold damage, plus save or be staggered 1round. You throw one additional snowball for every two levels above 1st, to a maximum of five at 9th level. If you hit one creature with more than one snowball, it only receives one save vs the staggered effect. SR applies.

Writeup here

This version scales more like an exemplar 1st level spell (magic missile), and still does the standard max damage for a 1st-level spell. At no point will it overshadow an exemplar 2nd level spell (scorching ray), while still having an interesting effect.

This version also has the possibility of staggering multiple opponents for 1 round, although most opponents will likely make their saves by the time you're throwing 5 per round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Lump me in with those that say to add SR and to put it with evocation.


I say keep SR:No, but I'm fine with it being Evocation.

Haladir: Your rewrite if it was SR: No, would also be acceptable.


Adding SR and putting it into Evocation makes sense. It is still a great spell at that and I may suggest going a bit further even, but I have no dog in this fight.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it strange that when I look at the spell I don't say "omg broken" and that I'd rather pick Color Spray than this spell 9 out of 10 times.


No, not at all. I do like to keep snowball on my sorcerers for killing golems with but otherwise don't bother with it.


Cardinal Chunder wrote:

. . .

And a half-orc falchion wielder can out damage that in a round every round. Falchions are OP, BAN-HAMMER!

SSSHHHHHH!... (or they'll ban falchions next).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Te'Shen wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:

. . .

And a half-orc falchion wielder can out damage that in a round every round. Falchions are OP, BAN-HAMMER!
SSSHHHHHH!... (or they'll ban falchions next).

You expect a two handed blade to be able to do decent damage? Might as well ask for water balloons to be a supported combat style.


chaoseffect wrote:
Te'Shen wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:

. . .

And a half-orc falchion wielder can out damage that in a round every round. Falchions are OP, BAN-HAMMER!
SSSHHHHHH!... (or they'll ban falchions next).
You expect a two handed blade to be able to do decent damage? Might as well ask for water balloons to be a supported combat style.

Nope, nope. It's too easy to fill balloons with acid or poison and be abused this way... nothing says abuse like spending, at minimum, 84 gp a shot for 1d2 dex damage. We shall not mention casters milk venomous familiars and druids to milk venomous animal companions for free... as a class feature. :\

...it does make me want to see a ninja with an eldritch heritage green sting scorpion, though.


James Risner wrote:

Is it strange that when I look at the spell I don't say "omg broken" and that I'd rather pick Color Spray than this spell 9 out of 10 times.

Nope! Colour spray is something that should be nerfed heavily.

A save or die that is basically never useless? nerf please


CWheezy wrote:
A save or die that is basically never useless? nerf please

Inb4 useless against high HD foes.

The DC is stuck at one, but stun is a nasty condition. Fighter and Ranger at level 5 still have awful will save, and stunned is a free disarm that also wrecks your ability to defend yourself and steals your turn. Vermin and undead are the ones who are immune, but that's a problem that almost every spell in the illusion/enchantment schools share. Color spray is pretty darned powerful.


Even things like a hill giant only have a +3 will.

By the time you fight one the dc is probably 16, and is pretty nasty haha


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if hte game needs more color spray -like 1st level spells. That kind of justification is wierd to me, basically no option would be broken because infinite simulacrum would be more broken.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Not sure if hte game needs more color spray -like 1st level spells. That kind of justification is wierd to me, basically no option would be broken because infinite simulacrum would be more broken.

The justification is not "It should be more like colour spray"

It is more along the lines of "This spell is worse than colour spray by a large margin, so why would you bother nerfing it?"

You should start at the top with the egregious examples of spell rather than some upper mid spell


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fixing Snowball would be easy. SR: Yes. Problem solved.

Instead, someone decided to recycle the (bad) 3.5 idea of making conjurers better blasters than evokers.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

lol @ benchmark spells being "broken"


bugleyman wrote:

Fixing Snowball would be easy. SR: Yes. Problem solved.

Instead, someone decided to recycle the (bad) 3.5 idea of making conjurers better blasters than evokers.

Tell that to dazing spells....


Charlie Bell wrote:
lol @ benchmark spells being "broken"

Hmmm? This has been known for like, 10 years or whatever.

It wasn't changed because paizo liked money and said they couldn't change things, so wizards and sorcs get an aoe save or die from level 1

Liberty's Edge

Necro to celebrate the stealth nerf this got in Ultimate Wilderness.

I couldn't find much in the way of discussion or announcements since it's release so I decided to perform unholy magics to bring this to peoples attention.

Snowball is now: Evocation [Cold, Water]
Added to the Bloodrager Spell list
Allows SR
No longer has any Save nor can it Stagger an opponent.

Finally, it is no longer the most powerful 1st level spell in the game. (Aside from Blood Money which should only existing in a MAX of 2-3 spellbooks on the entire planet)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't get what the fuss was about. If your spellcaster is spending rounds doing single target damage, you should be celebrating as a GM.


I am not certain as I do not play in P.F.S., however is the original version of Snowball not also still valid for play?

Old version :

Equipment: all equipment except cauldron of overwhelming allies and spear of manhunting are legal for play; Spells: flurry of snowballs, ice spears, Irriseni mirror sight, and snowball; See the rules and Chronicle sheet download for additional sanctioned content.
Pathfinder Player Companion: People of the North wrote:
Spells: all spells on page 26 are legal
New version :
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Wilderness wrote:
Spells: The spells in this book are legal for play except forest's sense, and grasping vine. Vine strike is now legal for play.

EDIT : Oops, apparently not ...

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Organized play uses the most updated version of an option unless the previous version is specifically exempted. People of the North now counts as a valid source to use Snowball, but all players must use the UW wording regardless of which source they own.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Organized play uses the most updated version of an option unless the previous version is specifically exempted. People of the North now counts as a valid source to use Snowball, but all players must use the UW wording regardless of which source they own.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Organized play uses the most updated version of an option unless the previous version is specifically exempted. People of the North now counts as a valid source to use Snowball, but all players must use the UW wording regardless of which source they own.

Ah, thank you; I have updated my post to reflect this. Sorry to be a pain but I like to keep a reference document to track where I get things from - can you direct me to where this is stated? I have tried the Organized Play F.A.Q. to no avail, (unless I simply missed it!), My search-fu is weak today.

Found it :
Pathfinder Adventure Path #67: The Snows of Summer wrote:

Page 73—Replace the text of the snowball spell with the following.

School evocation [cold, water]; Level bloodrager 1, druid 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, witch 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect one ball of ice and snow
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes

You throw a ball of elemental ice and snow at a single target as a ranged touch attack. The snowball deals 1d6 points of cold damage per caster level you have (maximum 5d6).

Liberty's Edge

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Don't get what the fuss was about. If your spellcaster is spending rounds doing single target damage, you should be celebrating as a GM.

Single target Damage on a Ranged Touch that has damage scaling better than any other 1st level spell, on top of applying Staggered on a failed Fort Save meant that is was essentially "best in class" for damage as well as Crowd Control/Utility.

It was just way too good, and I'm glad to see it updated, the power creep has been REAL, and pullback decisions like this help give me faith that Paizo is able to recognize balance problems, something that has been proven over and over to be an essential part of Organized Play.

Just imagine being a PFS GM at a level 1 table with 3 TOTALLY DIFFERENT spellcasters all of whom spend almost all of their 1st level slots on just two spells, Snowball and Color Spray.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm afraid I disagree on a number of points in regards to Snowball. Mostly, because I do not play PFS. Thus I have lee-way to adjust encounters against my player's tactics. However, it still peeves me off to no end when instead of just banning something from PFS they decide to ruin a good thing for everyone else as well.

As a GM without PFS restrictions, I have no problem with my party deciding to prepare nothing but Color Spray and Snowball. Mostly because the next encounter will now be composed of Skeletons, who are immune to cold damage, stagger, and mind-effecting effects. The whole party could have Snowball as an at will SLA and I could still make the campaign interesting for them.

In regards to the changes themselves the Stagger loss, while reasonable, is secondary in my mind to the fact that the spell now lacks SR pierce. As a conjuration effect, it should ignore SR similar to Acid Arrow as the elemental matter in question is conjured and not evoked. I'd have preferred that to stay as it messes with the consistency of conjured damage spells. That makes it harder to explain the difference between conjuration and evocation magic to any new players that join my group


It doesn't, because it is no longer conjuration.


ShroudedInLight wrote:
That makes it harder to explain the difference between conjuration and evocation magic to any new players that join my group

well, it’s an evocation now so that shouldn’t be a problem.


Well, color me silly. I didn't notice that shift.


The game of pathfinder is about options.

When a spell or feat or item becomes the "only" option, its against that core goal. That's when they change it.

So yeah, the change never shocked me. Still a decent spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removing SR, making it no longer stagger, and making it no longer a creation effect so you can throw it into antimagic areas? In my opinion... hitting all three of those at once was too much.

I'm speaking from experience having seen a witch build to use the non-nerfed version and seeing the girl whiffing it all the time as an elf witch with high dexterity. She does okay damage when it hits and *sometimes* staggers some poor sod, but the original wasn't as game-breaking as people make it out to be.

I tell you right now that the witch I play that's using spells like enlarge person and ear-piercing scream is crushing it in comparison, and since gaining level 3 to be using glitterdust and such? She goes well beyond snowball damage or stagger effects in power.


The updated version is more in line with other damage spells, and the changes make sense from that perspective. It makes sense that this is Evocation, it makes sense that SR is allowed, and it makes sense that you don't get a free save-or-suck effect while also dealing max damage for this spell level & type. Compare and contrast with Shocking Grasp, and the new version seems totally reasonable to me.

However, I don't think the original was OP compared with non-damaging spells. And I can reconcile those statements largely because I think damage spells are intrinsically pretty low-power and not really worthwhile without significant build investment or unusual circumstances. Reducing it to the sort of power damage spells have by default, rather than being on the same tier as non-damage spells doesn't strike me as super useful or necessary for the game, but there you go. *shrugs* I am glad they moved it to Evocation, even though that's bad for me on a mechanical level.

I personally will still be prepping the spell occasionally on a PFS wizard-based arcane trickster, because surprise round 5d6+sneak attack can be a decent opener at the level she's at. But I won't be prepping it on my PFS arcanist (conjuration school specialist), because it no longer seems to justify one of her very restricted prep slots now it only does one job (which is not a job she will ever be good at).


Ultimate Wilderness did the right thing in changing Snowball. The powergamers were doing everything they could to abuse it. When every caster and their familiar in the party uses Snowball - it's clearly problematic. Now, with the fix, it is much more reasonable and gives those same casters plenty to complain about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With all three changes, now it's a terrible spell with pretty much no reason to ever pick it other than "my character likes cold spells". Things being what they are, though, I suppose a more gradual approach to the situation was doomed from the start. Back to everybody prepping magic missile as their 1st-level "single-target" blast again, I suppose.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:

Well, I would be fine if the spell get converted to evocation and allow SR.

I keep my 5 year old opinion.


blahpers wrote:
With all three changes, now it's a terrible spell with pretty much no reason to ever pick it other than "my character likes cold spells". Things being what they are, though, I suppose a more gradual approach to the situation was doomed from the start. Back to everybody prepping magic missile as their 1st-level "single-target" blast again, I suppose.

I mostly agree, though Snowball does perform better than Magic Missiles from caster levels 2-8. Of course, anywhere past level 5 (or 6) you have 3rd level spells and they will blow any single target damage option out of the water especially as a level 1 spells.

Naturally, Magic Missiles never missing more than makes up for the damage loss but its still...something? (I guess Snowball being Cold could also help if you are a Sorcerer with the right bloodline or like to use Rime Spell.)


blahpers wrote:
With all three changes, now it's a terrible spell with pretty much no reason to ever pick it other than "my character likes cold spells". Things being what they are, though, I suppose a more gradual approach to the situation was doomed from the start. Back to everybody prepping magic missile as their 1st-level "single-target" blast again, I suppose.

Yes. The standard for 1st level damage spell remains the standard for 1st level damage spell.

So you see how that works.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Seems like a great candidate for intensify spell. 10d6 single target damage for a 2nd-level slot is pretty good. Not as good as scorching ray, but it at least has the advantage of not doing fire damage.

101 to 150 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Snowball Errata Status? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.