Wall of Force stops incorporeal creatures from moving through it because it's made of force. But there's no option to shape the wall or create a sphere to trap them in. Can't they just Fly around the wall, through the environment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.
So it slows them down, but can't stop them or trap them. I have seen instances for NPCs in highest-level dungeons where the outer perimeter and/or key areas were enclosed so PCs can't bypass defenses by going ethereal. In one Paizo Dungeon Mag scenario it was every wall in the dungeon!
How effective wall of force is, depends on editions and interpretations about allowing wall spells to be things other than horizontal walls.
I would imagine there is a probably a ritual that exists that would imbue walls/structure/ceilings with an effect that would stop ethereal creatures from going through without other benefits like wall of force would have.
But yes, as written for PF2 wall of force can be pretty easily bypassed by going around it for incorporeal creatures. Go through the floor. Or through the ceiling.
I'm pretty sure that's why the Resilient Sphere --> Containment spell exists. Trap/protect a target in a spherical bubble of force.
It would have been much better if the two spells were merged with different Heighten effects, but for now, we are stuck with the use-cases for conjuring a force barrier split between two different spells, which is pretty silly.
This is why rushing a remaster is such a shame imo, you miss so many opportunities like that.
.
As of now, I think I'm more likely to carry a casting of Containment, and ask the GM if I can target a square to plug a doorway/etc than I am to carry wall of force.
Walls spells are amazing for a few short levels, but fall off a cliff in terms of usability.
Now that my PC hit L20, it's just sad/frustrating to think about how impractical indirect tactics like walls are. Everything either can teleport like crazy, fly, or both. The bubble version at least can do *something* to the few without teleportation.
This PC invested a lot to get Jagged Berms, and it's so useless (in real AP scenarios) that the two times I forced it, the conjured barriers hurt/disrupted my allies far more than the foes.
You want Containment It is a sphere that surrounds the target, even on a success. Also it's only a level 4 spell instead of 6.
[Ninja'd by Trip.H]
The problem with Containment is that against anything that isn't incorporeal it's going to get taken down by a single strike unless you critically succeed. It's just not very durable and that really limits its usefulness as a control spell. Wall of Force can at least soak substantially more damage in places where it actually can contain something.
Yep. Useless against incorporeal or fliers when can't be sealed or burrowers if they can go through the ground and any other odd situations.
The problem with Containment is that against anything that isn't incorporeal it's going to get taken down by a single strike unless you critically succeed. It's just not very durable and that really limits its usefulness as a control spell. Wall of Force can at least soak substantially more damage in places where it actually can contain something.
I've come to value CC that is not a listed condition a lot more as time has gone on.
While Slow kinda is always the first priority debuff, once that is in effect, putting them in a bubble is a great play. So long as the turn order is aligns to force the foe to be the one to break out. (Delay is very underutilized)
Another detail is that of MAP actions, and this tactic becomes better if the foe is an attacker that suffers from using their MAP 0 attack on the spell.
The issue of the spell's save is a pretty big one though, which is kinda why I like the idea of using it as a door plug.
I can only remember actually using the spell once myself, to just put a mook into timeout so they would stop peppering us with arrows while we were busy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But as you know, Containment targets a creature so cannot act like a plug unless there's a creature to target. It also doesn't have a default size so even if allowed, w/o a creature it occupies no space. Plus it's no more hardy, which was the complaint.
It still has uses though; trap a poison-using Rogue in there and their great damage will struggle against the shell. Or a caster who specializes in AoEs and Mental spells. As noted even a brute who rolls a success still has to use an action + MAP to escape. That's a good trade vs. a boss.
But as you know, Containment targets a creature so cannot act like a plug unless there's a creature to target. It also doesn't have a default size so even if allowed, w/o a creature it occupies no space. Plus it's no more hardy, which was the complaint.
It still has uses though; trap a poison-using Rogue in there and their great damage will struggle against the shell. Or a caster who specializes in AoEs and Mental spells. As noted even a brute who rolls a success still has to use an action + MAP to escape. That's a good trade vs. a boss.
Most GMs seem to be pretty permissive with spell targeting when it seems reasonable. A debuff like Slow, that only makes sense when cast upon a creature.
But conjuring a bubble sphere of force? Most GMs I've played with would allow a caster to place it in-range, in an empty square.
The invisibility is another angle, as it can turn a 1A penalty into a 2A via failed stride then strike.
Though, I don't know how likely you are to get a GM to roleplay that out, especially every time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But as you know, Containment targets a creature so cannot act like a plug unless there's a creature to target. It also doesn't have a default size so even if allowed, w/o a creature it occupies no space. Plus it's no more hardy, which was the complaint.
It still has uses though; trap a poison-using Rogue in there and their great damage will struggle against the shell. Or a caster who specializes in AoEs and Mental spells. As noted even a brute who rolls a success still has to use an action + MAP to escape. That's a good trade vs. a boss.
Most GMs seem to be pretty permissive with spell targeting when it seems reasonable. A debuff like Slow, that only makes sense when cast upon a creature.
But conjuring a bubble sphere of force? Most GMs I've played with would allow a caster to place it in-range, in an empty square.
The invisibility is another angle, as it can turn a 1A penalty into a 2A via failed stride then strike.
Though, I don't know how likely you are to get a GM to roleplay that out, especially every time.
Containment specifically targets 1 creature. I haven't met many GMs that will simply let you ignore that and cast it on nothing to create an indeterminate size force bubble. That is strictly house rule territory.
My favorite aspect of invisible barriers is breaking line of effect, especially an old school fireball which traveled from the caster thus exploded against the wall. It would be infrequent when one interrupted a Stride as to lose an action (above having no way through), though a Leap could have consequences.
I'm tempted to make a list of low-level bigger creatures to Summon and then cast Containment on. Giant Skunk is Large at level 1/Rank 2 and there's a centipede at level 3/Rank 4 (however silly wasteful that would be). I'd think one could simply cast it on the first enemy, maybe first one that fills the space. It might take a warrior holding the line at a specific junction, but retreats in PF2 already require coordination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo tried to dump or nerf all the "I win the fight" spells in P2. Containment (nee Otiluke's Resilient Sphere) is a perfect example of that kind of spell.
The D&D 3.5 the sphere is completely immune to damage, so if the enemy fails their save you win the fight. The only limiting factor was the size (1ft./caster level diameter). When the spell comes online it is already 7 ft in diameter, large enough for any medium creature.
In P1, Paizo pulled back a bit, allowing you to damage the sphere. But it had hardness of 30 and 20 hp/CL (min 140). Again technically damageable, but in actuality, nearly immune to damage.
In P2, high damage for a 7th level creature is an average of 20. Meaning with hardness 10 and 40 hp, a level 7 creature is going to take on average 4 actions to escape the sphere. Even a level 9 creature is averaging 24 damage per hit, meaning they lose a whole turn. Pretty good outcome. Even on a success the creature will need to take at least one action to escape, burning their high MAP attack on the sphere. P2 version isn't 100% worse than P1, since it no longer has a max size restriction.
Is this the best spell in the game? No. Is it the best level 4 spell? Probably also no. Is it a good spell that is helpful to the party even on a success? You bet.
But conjuring a bubble sphere of force? Most GMs I've played with would allow a caster to place it in-range, in an empty square.Containment specifically targets 1 creature. I haven't met many GMs that will simply let you ignore that and cast it on nothing to create an indeterminate size force bubble. That is strictly house rule territory.
Especially with the Critical Success entry. If there isn't a creature inside the sphere, then it collapses on casting.
Especially with the Critical Success entry. If there isn't a creature inside the sphere, then it collapses on casting.
It's absolutely not RaW, and up to the GM. Generally, I've played with GMs that are excited / happy to have players use their tools in creative ways, so long as it's not abusive / power grabby.
Using a conjured tentacle intended to grapple foes and putting it on the ceiling to help everyone climb up to a ledge, etc.
But I did totally forget the wording of that crit success, which imo does give the GM more than enough room to say targeting an object / doorframe is not a reasonable off-script use.
Critical Success The target escapes from the field as it's forming, causing it to collapse.
To be clear, you can still get to the point where it's "unreasonable" to deny object targeting because of things like constructs and clockwork. The line between creature/object is kinda nonexistent in the textual sense, so things can get frustrating if the GM tries to be "RaW only" and allow one to Contain that swarm of silverware, but not a door/floor tile. (especially when doors can become valid targets when they are traps)
(I honestly wonder if a fair amount of the "casters suck" mindset comes from dealing with such overly-RaW GMs. If you're unable to use Ignition to light a chair on fire and chuck it down a shaft as an improvised torch, that kind of RP discouragement can be a big negative, specifically to those PCs with such open-ended possibilities.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. Strict RAW is sometimes a troll ruling.
I honestly wonder if a fair amount of the "casters suck" mindset comes from dealing with such overly-RaW GMs.
Not much.
Mostly that mindset is due to nerfing the save-or-suck spells to have their 'suck' result relegated to critical failure of the save and then adding the Incapacitation trait onto them to prevent them from causing a 'suck' result on a boss at all.
Also the switching of a spell's power and accuracy. PF1 spells have accuracy depending on spell level and power depending on character level. So high level casters can still use their low level spell slots to cast damage spells as long as they take the feats to buff their save DCs. PF2 switches that so that accuracy depends on character level, but power depends on spell Rank. You can accurately cast your damage spells with low Rank spell slots without needing any feat taxes, but they only do minor amounts of damage.
So yeah. The "casters suck" mindset is nostalgia for high level PF1 casters that were OP powerhouses that could end a fight with one standard action.