# [Frostburn] Shivering Touch: The new Harm



## FireLance (Sep 29, 2004)

Those of you who have Frostburn, take a look at page 104. _Shivering touch_ is a new 3rd-level cleric and sorcerer/wizard spell which does 3d6 points of Dexterity damage, requires a melee touch attack and gives no saving throw (but allows Spell Resistance).

Maximize it and you get a 6th-level spell that does 18 points of Dexterity damage - enough to make almost any creature helpless. Dragons, in particular, tend to have Dexterity scores of 10.

I smell potential errata here. The spell has a duration, so it was probably meant to impose a Dexterity penalty instead of dealing Dexterity damage. Like _ray of enfeeblement_, I would also put in a clause to say that Dexterity cannot be reduced to less than 1 as a result of this spell.

What do you think?


----------



## UltimaGabe (Sep 29, 2004)

I agree completely.


----------



## Agamemnon (Sep 29, 2004)

Nice to see that the WOTC rules team is still up to their working strength: two concussed gnats and a drunk monkey. Testing potential spells with PHB metamagic feats to determine brokenness ought to be a no-brainer, but apparently the monkey didn't feel up to it this time.


----------



## silentspace (Sep 29, 2004)

Hehe, that's funny.


----------



## silentspace (Sep 29, 2004)

The best part though is the touch attack.  If you can touch it, it probably has a low-ish dex, and will probably then fall to the ground, tripping over itself.

Even not maximized.  Heck, enhanced will pretty much automatically take out most MM monsters, I think.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 29, 2004)

They must have given it no save to prevent Spell Focus becoming overpowered again.   

IMHO only a very few offensive spells should have no save. A spell which requires a ranged touch attack roll is fine without a save, because there's still a chance to miss the target. A melee touch spell should always have a save (at least if it is potentially deadly), since you never really "miss" and waste the spell, you just lose time but not the spell.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Sep 29, 2004)

Sounds broken to me. If it is, then it'll be fixed in an errata.


----------



## green slime (Sep 29, 2004)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> Nice to see that the WOTC rules team is still up to their working strength: two concussed gnats and a drunk monkey. Testing potential spells with PHB metamagic feats to determine brokenness ought to be a no-brainer, but apparently the monkey didn't feel up to it this time.




That's blatantly unfair.

To the drunk monkeys of this world.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 29, 2004)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Sounds broken to me. If it is, then it'll be fixed in an errata.




Ah, hope springs eternal


----------



## Thanee (Sep 29, 2004)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> If it is, then it'll be fixed in an errata.



 Yeah, like so many other things before... 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Scribble (Sep 29, 2004)

> Sounds broken to me. If it is, then it'll be fixed in an errata.




Seee you have to look on the bright side of life. Without these mistakes the errata team would be out of a job!


----------



## Nail (Sep 29, 2004)

Errata: what game designers do on their coffee breaks.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Sep 29, 2004)

BTW Lahm's Finger Darts from the BOVD is even worse. No attack roll, no save, 1d4 dex + 1d4 for each 2 CLs beyond first, and its only level 2. Of course it does have its costs, but its still worse. Not that this spell _isn't_ overpowered...


----------



## Night Watchman (Sep 29, 2004)

mmm...I smell a new edition!


----------



## Henry (Sep 29, 2004)

Ahnehnois said:
			
		

> BTW Lahm's Finger Darts from the BOVD is even worse. No attack roll, no save, 1d4 dex + 1d4 for each 2 CLs beyond first, and its only level 2. Of course it does have its costs, but its still worse. Not that this spell _isn't_ overpowered...




I'd like to point out the fact that the "cost" to Lahm's Finger Darts require you to shoot your fingers at the target. They do grow back, but if I recall, it takes a DAY to grow them back, which means no spellcasting for you with that hand until they grow back...


As for shivering touch, I smell errata in the brewing - that's too much.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 29, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out the fact that the "cost" to Lahm's Finger Darts require you to shoot your fingers at the target. They do grow back, but if I recall, it takes a DAY to grow them back, which means no spellcasting for you with that hand until they grow back...




Oooh... Vile Spellweaver... 

-Hyp.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Sep 29, 2004)

> I'd like to point out the fact that the "cost" to Lahm's Finger Darts require you to shoot your fingers at the target. They do grow back, but if I recall, it takes a DAY to grow them back, which means no spellcasting for you with that hand until they grow back...



The fingers also return when the corruption cost ability damage is healed, which is not all that difficult to do. The price is significant, yes, but at medium to high levels, this spell will render helpless virtually anyone. Any wizard can kill a helpless target eventually, whether his fingers work or not.

Shivering Touch, no drawback, except the touch attack, which no self-respecting cleric will miss very often. If they thought that 3.0 harm was overpowered, how could this get through? Bizarre.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 29, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> IMHO only a very few offensive spells should have no save. A spell which requires a ranged touch attack roll is fine without a save, because there's still a chance to miss the target. A melee touch spell should always have a save (at least if it is potentially deadly), since you never really "miss" and waste the spell, you just lose time but not the spell.



but... you have to get into melee in order to touch the target.  I'd rather have a spell with range: ray vs range: touch any time.

As for this particular spell, since it's nice and low-level it can also be used in conjunction with _spectral hand_ if you're a wizard.


----------



## provik (Dec 12, 2005)

*Scaled Upgrades on Shivering Touch*

By the logical scale they provided, everything else staying the same, you could easily design a 5th level Improved Shivering Touch that does 5d6 damage.  

And then 9th level Shivering Touch would deadl 9d6 damage.

At this point, you're just seeing who you can catch without an Elemental Kiss: Cold on at that time.

This spell is blatantly overpowered.  If you put the cap on for 1 Dex minimum, then yes, I could accept it much more readily.  Also, cleaning up its clarification of "damage" vs. "penalty" would be nice.  They way they word it now, I've had players arguing that multiple castings stack because its damage and not penalty.  *That's* even more broken.

Damage occurs and that's it.  Penalty has a duration.  This spell has a damage and a duration.  WTF??

And also, at 3rd level, 3d6 Dex is still really powerful.


----------



## Cabral (Dec 12, 2005)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> IMHO only a very few offensive spells should have no save. A spell which requires a ranged touch attack roll is fine without a save, because there's still a chance to miss the target. A melee touch spell should always have a save (at least if it is potentially deadly), since you never really "miss" and waste the spell, you just lose time but not the spell.



Maybe they should've put a reflex save for half?


----------



## the Jester (Dec 12, 2005)

Has this been updated in the _Spell Compendium?_  (I can't find mine right now.)


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 12, 2005)

Cabral said:
			
		

> Maybe they should've put a reflex save for half?




Fort save for none seems balanced to me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 12, 2005)

3d6 of dexterity damage is ... interesting ... for a 3rd level spell. I guess a short comparison with the 3rd level Poison spell will show it is to strong. (Poison allows a saving throw...)

Oh, speaking of stupid spells, I want to use this oppertunity to complain about the Orb of [Energy] line of spells. 
Why are they conjurations? I can see acid (because there are acid substances), but the rest is clearly an evocation, because it creates energy out of nowhere (especially the Force Orbs)
The only reason they created them is because they wanted a higher level no-spell-resistance attack spell, similar to Melfs Acid Arrow, but seem to completely miss the point of the distinction between conjuration and evocation.  
I mean, as a player I should be eager to exploit them (especially since there are few damage-dealing spells that can be used against single targets effectively and can be used to attack magic-immune monsters like Constructs), but it is simply to much for my taste..

Ahem.


----------



## Cabral (Dec 12, 2005)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Why are they conjurations? I can see acid (because there are acid substances), but the rest is clearly an evocation, because it creates energy out of nowhere (especially the Force Orbs)



You mean, it conjures the energy out of nowhere? /ducks and runs 

humor aside, you could think of conjuring an orb of energy as summoning a specialized elemental... all it does is run up and touch people.



			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Fort save for none seems balanced to me.




I was thinking a fort for half. But a reflex save would make it make it another jab at low dex targets.


----------



## trippies (Aug 10, 2007)

*thank you all!*

you just helped me figure out my last 3rd level spell for my ray/orb/rangedTA sneak build *swoon*


----------



## UltimaGabe (Aug 10, 2007)

trippies said:
			
		

> you just helped me figure out my last 3rd level spell for my ray/orb/rangedTA sneak build *swoon*




Um... honestly, did that merit reviving a post from more than two years ago?


----------



## Vorput (Aug 10, 2007)

UltimaGabe said:
			
		

> Um... honestly, did that merit reviving a post from more than two years ago?




I say yes, cause I want to take this spell now


----------



## Nifft (Aug 10, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Oooh... Vile Spellweaver...



 I like the way you think.

But consider how much fun a *ghost* could have with this spell. 

"What do you mean my Rogue has no fingers?!"

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 11, 2007)

UltimaGabe said:
			
		

> Um... honestly, did that merit reviving a post from more than two years ago?



I didn't see you complain when provik did it.


----------



## Warforged Goblin (Aug 11, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Ah, hope springs eternal




...and bed springs are squeaky.

Seriously, I know a certain artificer who's gonna be scribing some scrolls of this...


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Aug 12, 2007)

Ah Shivering Touch... the spell of _*un-fun*_

SPOILERS for Paizo's Savage Tide




Spoiler



We were playing _The Sea Wyvern's Wake_ and we had set anchor down by a certain waterfall.  The rogue went fishing off the side of the ship and reeled in a 7-headed hydra.  

Seven attacks later the rogue is at -3 hp, and all of our hearts are pumping and hands nervously go for dice.  We're in a bad situation, the thing has reach on most of us.  Oh, man, it's going to be a tough fight.

My sorcerer 5-foots out of range and uses up a scroll of _glitterdust_.  Hydra gamely makes a will save, but the dice like me at that point and it fails.  So now we're still facing a 7-headed death machine with fast healing, but at least we've got a 50% miss chance on our side now.

The wizard takes his 5-foot step up to the side of the beasty, and casts Sudden Maximized _Shivering Touch_.  Easily makes the hyrda's 9 touch AC.  18 points of dex damage to something with a dex of 12.

Fight over.  No save.  Round 1.

Turned what could have been a thrilling and dangerous fight into... well... exactly why was the rest of the party here?



I told the wizard to never bring that spell out unless more than 1/2 the party is lying on the ground dying.


----------



## Elemental (Aug 13, 2007)

I just dropped the spell. Compare it to Contagion or Poison (spells of the same level that also deal ability damage) and ST is better to an absurd extent. Actually using something that obviously broken in a game seems very disrespectful to your GM. Enjoy it for the two sessions before it gets banned, I guess.   

I am surprised and pleased that nobody's actually tried to argue that it's perfectly balanced. I remember the 3.0 Harm threads where the spell was apparently fine because everyone had Rings of Counterspells and 11th level cleric buddies.


----------



## mikebr99 (Aug 13, 2007)

It's just as bad as Ray of Stupidity... except that is a 1st level spell. Bye bye hydras... dire animals... anything with low INT...

Most Ability damaging spells - outside of phb - are gone from my table. YMMV

Mike


----------

