# Spells which were not properly nerved...



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 22, 2009)

Silence.

There needs to be a casterlevel check when you try to attempt to cast a spell. This is one of the single most broken spells out there, because a cleric can just castsilence on himself and kill any wizard.

Or it should not be castable on mobile objects and when cast on a single person it only affects this single person.



Do you know other spells which are not properly nerved?

What about polymorph?

p.s.: you might argue it is only fair that every wizard has to prepare every single spell silenced to vring him down to a more reasonable balance level


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 22, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Silence.
> 
> There needs to be a casterlevel check when you try to attempt to cast a spell. This is one of the single most broken spells out there, because a cleric can just castsilence on himself and kill any wizard.
> 
> ...




Polymorph seems pretty nerfed already. What issue does the new version have (already limited it to humaniod, Elemental, animal, or Magic beast)?


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 22, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Silence.
> 
> There needs to be a casterlevel check when you try to attempt to cast a spell. This is one of the single most broken spells out there, because a cleric can just castsilence on himself and kill any wizard.



Alternately, the intelligence based wizard could intelligently prepare some silent spells to get himself out of the situation?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 22, 2009)

it was question about polymorph...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 22, 2009)

Salthorae said:


> Alternately, the intelligence based wizard could intelligently prepare some silent spells to get himself out of the situation?



not at that low level.

DSilence at level 3-6 is a movable antimagic field if used properly, no chance to avoid it for the mage, at level 3, whe he can encounter such a spell, he not even has silenced invisibility to get out...


----------



## concerro (Sep 23, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Silence.
> because a cleric can just cast silence on himself and kill any wizard.



How so?


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 23, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Silence.
> 
> There needs to be a casterlevel check when you try to attempt to cast a spell. This is one of the single most broken spells out there, because a cleric can just castsilence on himself and kill any wizard.
> 
> Or it should not be castable on mobile objects and when cast on a single person it only affects this single person.




I agree with you here in terms of silence being too good (I have had a player playing a high level wizard in one of my games use limited wish to cast this on more than one occasion).

I think the solution is a simple one in terms of the mechanics needed and you have hit upon it perfectly. There are several meta-magic feats affected here: eschew materials, silent spell and still spell.

You can cast spells eschewing material components (less than 1gp), cast spells non-verbally or cast spells without somatic movement as a caster level check (DC 15 + spell level). The Eschew Materials feat is left as is, while Silent Spell and Still Spell give you a bonus (+4?) to the caster level check. [Bard's cannot try to silently cast their spells]. If more than one metamagic casting is attempted then the DC goes up by 5 (for two metamagic castings) or 10 (for all three metamagic castings).

I think this would be the best solution as Silence is a good spell with lots of suitable applications as is. It is just that the sting vs, spellcasters needs to be taken out of it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## concerro (Sep 23, 2009)

Why cant the caster move out of the silenced area, and then cast a spell. Another point is that if your caster is in melee range you have another problem all together.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 23, 2009)

concerro said:


> Why cant the caster move out of the silenced area, and then cast a spell. Another point is that if your caster is in melee range you have another problem all together.



It covers a big area (20ft. radius) and a long range. The caster may not be able to define the boundaries of the silence either. In an enclosed space (building or dungeon) silence can be truly deadly to a wizard unless they took the silent spell ability. If they get grappled by even an average creature with a silence spell on them, they are as good as dead unless they receive help. The level of threat seems to change too much here (from insignificant in an open setting) to absolutely deadly. I think the caster level check thing is an interesting compromise.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise.


----------



## Victim (Sep 23, 2009)

Planeshift seemed like it could still be used as deadly attack.

Blasphemy/Holyword/etc still work the same, including the brutal power when combined with caster level boosts.

Harm looked pretty much the same too.


----------



## Jadeite (Sep 23, 2009)

Blindness/Deafness
Even without a permanent duration it would be a rather powerful spell, especially against spellcaster since it requires a fortitude save. And both Dispel Magic and Remove Blindness are both one spell level higher.

Slow
In this case, the spell is totally devastating to fighting characers, especially ones that have lots of attacks. Even against a single opponent, the spell is extremely since they are suddenly limited to one attack per round. It's also resisted with a will save, so most combatants chance of resisting is rather low.


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 23, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> not at that low level.
> 
> DSilence at level 3-6 is a movable antimagic field if used properly, no chance to avoid it for the mage, at level 3, whe he can encounter such a spell, he not even has silenced invisibility to get out...





By the time a cleric can cast Silence, the wizard can cast Silent Expeditious Retreat.

Of course, a 3rd level wizard can cast, oh I dunno, about a dozen "win button" spells on the cleric first (Sleep, Web, Summon Swarm, Color Spray). Silence has been a mainstay for over 30 years and it hasn't broken the game yet.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 23, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> By the time a cleric can cast Silence, the wizard can cast Silent Expeditious Retreat.
> 
> Of course, a 3rd level wizard can cast, oh I dunno, about a dozen "win button" spells on the cleric first (Sleep, Web, Summon Swarm, Color Spray). Silence has been a mainstay for over 30 years and it hasn't broken the game yet.




Silent ER isn't a common preparation.


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 23, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> Silent ER isn't a common preparation.




So? I was listing ways out of a silenced area for a 3rd level wizard, not _popular _ways out of a silnced area for a 3rd level wizard.

The point holds, the cleric has a non-discriminating weapon for use against casters (15' radius will nix any friendly casters near the victim as well), but it's not breaking the game. It's the REASON the Silent Spell feat exists, after all. Pick your favorite counter and Silent Spell it and you are good to go.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 23, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> By the time a cleric can cast Silence, the wizard can cast Silent Expeditious Retreat.
> 
> Of course, a 3rd level wizard can cast, oh I dunno, about a dozen "win button" spells on the cleric first (Sleep, Web, Summon Swarm, Color Spray). Silence has been a mainstay for over 30 years and it hasn't broken the game yet.



Silent expeditious retreat is indeed a good idea 

But I disagree with dozen win buttons. Usually most of them have saves. (I have to look up the ray of enfeeblement spell which may be quite devastating, but not at level 3 i think)

Sleep (no save in the last 30 years), as you may remember was nerved in 3.5 to grant a will save. In the spell system of ADnD where you had to win initiative and not be in melee to cast a spell, spells without saves are fine, but in a system where it is known before you cast, that your casting will succeed, such spells are a no go. Or actually may be cast a long time before you enter the encounter...

... cast it on a crossbow bolt and shoot at the wizard.


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 23, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> But I disagree with dozen win buttons. Usually most of them have saves. (I have to look up the ray of enfeeblement spell which may be quite devastating, but not at level 3 i think)




Silence requires a save too, when you cast it right at someone. If you don't, they can always move away.



> ... cast it on a crossbow bolt and shoot at the wizard.




Nah, cast it on the fighter's sword (or better yet, the monk's fist) and send them off to wail away at him. That's the real reason for the Expeditious Retreat, to get away from the monk!!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 23, 2009)

yeah i know, look my previous posts...

i just wanted to be creative


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Sep 24, 2009)

*OP is right*

Silence is broken in 3.5.  Employed properly, it can shut down a wizard of any level who has not specifically prepared against it.

The cleric should never simply cast silence on the wizard during his turn.  That's the least effective way of using the spell.

What he should do, is ready an action to cast silence on the ground at the wizard's feet when the wizard attempts to cast a spell.  The wizards' spell is automatically ruined.  This is strictly better than counterspelling, because it always works, and allows a low level spell to counter a high level spell.

A low level cleric can shut down a high level wizard in this fashion, for as many rounds as he has silence spells, and possibly for good if he has enough silence spells to blanket the available area.  All he has to do is win initiative, or survive until his first turn (ok, so that might be difficult!), and it's over.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 24, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> What he should do, is ready an action to cast silence on the ground at the wizard's feet when the wizard attempts to cast a spell. The wizards' spell is automatically ruined. This is strictly better than counterspelling, because it always works, and allows a low level spell to counter a high level spell.



The ground isn't an object you can use it on (because then it would affect the whole world if that counted).
You can use it on a rock though.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 25, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> The ground isn't an object you can use it on (because then it would affect the whole world if that counted).
> You can use it on a rock though.



According to Pathfinder Core Rules (unchanged from 3.5) you can target a point in space (in this case directly where the caster is standing). Even if you targetted a mountain, the radius of effect would still stand (a point would need to be chosen on the object).

As in my above posts, there should be a way for all casters to get around this (even if it is only a chance). A caster level chack makes sense.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 25, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> Silence is broken in 3.5.  Employed properly, it can shut down a wizard of any level who has not specifically prepared against it.
> 
> The cleric should never simply cast silence on the wizard during his turn.  That's the least effective way of using the spell.
> 
> ...



I actually didn´t thought of that use, but thats really evil. adding insult to injury, you waste this wizards action so he can´t counter your silence.

To make this work better: prepare many silenced spells yourself. Something against fort or ref which easily succeeds against wizards. If you are a bard I would advise grease.


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 25, 2009)

Pathfinder's silence spell has a casting time of one round, where as in 3.5 it was a standard action. This means you can no longer ready it to auto interrupt the caster. Also, your spell won't go off until the start of your next turn when you cast it.

As for spells that should have been weakened, Hideous Laughter has always been quite good. It's better and lower level than Hold Person.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 25, 2009)

Freakohollik said:


> Pathfinder's silence spell has a casting time of one round, where as in 3.5 it was a standard action. This means you can no longer ready it to auto interrupt the caster. Also, your spell won't go off until the start of your next turn when you cast it.




He's right. I read that the first time and also thought ("wait they didn't nerf silence?").

However, the extra casting time does remove some of the more egregious abuses.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 25, 2009)

ok, at least the counterspell tactic was taken care of. ^^

didn´t see the change. 

But with preperationtime it can still be cast at the barbarians axe...


----------



## Bad Paper (Sep 25, 2009)

Isn't Silence a glamer?  Illusions tend to have either saving throws or caster level checks.  I'm in the caster level camp.

Is Blasphemy still broken as heck?  I've always had to find a reason to not use it, or forget about it, or use it ineffectively.  It's an insta-TPK in the hands of a high HD demon.


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 25, 2009)

I've never heard of Blasphemy as being even close to broken before...and no it doesn't look to be changed that I can see. 

The only Core Demon/Devils that have _Blasphemy_ as an SLA are Balors (CL 20) & Pit Fiend (CL 18), both fixed. They are both CR 20, so realistically you shouldn't be encountering them utnil you are in the 18-20 level range (in a normal game). At which point the effects from _Blasphemy_ are either negligible (i.e. _Dazed_ for the Pit Fiend's and _Weakend/Dazed_ for the Balor's) or easily avoidable: DC 25 Will save to negate Daze and 1/2 the Str penalty... plus SR applies.

Once you should be faciing it as a creature SLA you shouldn't have to really even worry about it, let alone face a TPK from it...


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 26, 2009)

Blasphemy and it's law/chaos/good cousins now allow a save for the effects. And yes blasphemy was a huge danger in 3.5. It is one of the reasons I always have death ward active when I do any high level adventuring. If a creature has more than 10HD than you and uses it, whole party dies no save. The guy at the end of shackled city had it, and if you convert Bastion of Broken Souls to 3.5, the boss of that adventure has it too. And both those guys have more than 10HD than the recommended party level.

All that said, I'm still not going anywhere above level 15 without death ward.


----------



## concerro (Sep 26, 2009)

Ghouls Touch is broken. The save is to avoid the stench. The paralysis is automatic. IIRC the spell is only 2nd level.


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 26, 2009)

concerro said:


> Ghouls Touch is broken. The save is to avoid the stench. The paralysis is automatic. IIRC the spell is only 2nd level.





1) It's identical to 3.5

2) the Fortitude Negates is for the paralysis. The stench is a secondary effect that also grants a Fortitude save.

In keeping with other changes to PRPG, they might have wanted to allow round-by-round saves to negate the paralysis, but I'm not that concerned about it. Certainly not "broken".


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 26, 2009)

_Silence_ allows a Will save and SR, and it does not state this is limited to a creature upon whom the spell is centered.


----------



## Votan (Sep 26, 2009)

Salthorae said:


> I've never heard of Blasphemy as being even close to broken before...and no it doesn't look to be changed that I can see.
> 
> The only Core Demon/Devils that have _Blasphemy_ as an SLA are Balors (CL 20) & Pit Fiend (CL 18), both fixed. They are both CR 20, so realistically you shouldn't be encountering them utnil you are in the 18-20 level range (in a normal game). At which point the effects from _Blasphemy_ are either negligible (i.e. _Dazed_ for the Pit Fiend's and _Weakend/Dazed_ for the Balor's) or easily avoidable: DC 25 Will save to negate Daze and 1/2 the Str penalty... plus SR applies.
> 
> Once you should be faciing it as a creature SLA you shouldn't have to really even worry about it, let alone face a TPK from it...




Not that a cleric can have this spell, that the CL-5 effect is paralysis for minutes and there are a lot of ways to boost caster level (including magic items).  Facing a cleric who is level 17 with a prayer bead (or divine feat) that let's her boost her CL to 20 could happen to a party with many of the players at 15th level (it's far worse if level adjusted characters are in your party).


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 26, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> _Silence_ allows a Will save and SR, and it does not state this is limited to a creature upon whom the spell is centered.





Objects don't get a save. The spell is centered on a creature, object or point in space, and it's an area emanation. Unless I'm missing something, you only get a save if you are the target, but SR applies whenever the protected creature is affected, regardless of when.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 26, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> Objects don't get a save. The spell is centered on a creature, object or point in space, and it's an area emanation. Unless I'm missing something, you only get a save if you are the target, but SR applies whenever the protected creature is affected, regardless of when.




It's an area spell, just like fireball or glitterdust. Why wouldn't you get a save? Burst, emanation and spread have the same entry under Aiming a Spell.


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 26, 2009)

Fireball and Glitterdust are both spreads, not emanations, and neither have "Save: Object none" in their entries.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 26, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> Fireball and Glitterdust are both spreads, not emanations, and neither have "Save: Object none" in their entries.




Fireball with save: Will Negate; see text, Object (None). Would be awesome. Don't cast in directly on enemies and you get no save.

It says in PSRD: Unattended Objects and points of space get no save.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 27, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> Objects don't get a save. The spell is centered on a creature, object or point in space, and it's an area emanation. Unless I'm missing something, you only get a save if you are the target, but SR applies whenever the protected creature is affected, regardless of when.




You are missing something. Silence doesn't have targets, it is an area spell. Just like a fireball.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Sep 27, 2009)

*silence*

Here is the 3.5 SRD entry for silence:

Silence
Illusion (Glamer)
Level:	Brd 2, Clr 2
Components:	V, S
Casting Time:	1 standard action
Range:	Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area:	20-ft.-radius emanation centered on a creature, object, or point in space
Duration:	1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw:	Will negates; see text or none (object)
Spell Resistance:	Yes; see text or no (object)
Upon the casting of this spell, complete silence prevails in the affected area. All sound is stopped: Conversation is impossible, spells with verbal components cannot be cast, and no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area. The spell can be cast on a point in space, but the effect is stationary unless cast on a mobile object. The spell can be centered on a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves. An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell and can use spell resistance, if any. Items in a creature’s possession or magic items that emit sound receive the benefits of saves and spell resistance, but unattended objects and points in space do not. This spell provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks.


So, are you arguing that 

1) a creature standing in an area that would be in the area of effect of a silence spell receives a save when it is cast, even though it is cast on a fixed point in space?

2) a creature who enters an area previously affected by a silence spell gets a save upon entering it?

3) a creature who has a previously cast silenced spell (say, cast on the party rogue) encroach on him on his turn gets a save to ignore it's effect?

This has never been my interpretation of the rules, nor of any other gamers I have played with.  I will agree,  though, that this interpretation makes the spell more palatable.

If you look at the SRD entry above, the text that mentions saves is in a subclause describing the case where the spell is cast on the creature in question.  It isn't clear to me that it's intended to apply when the silenced area is on a point in space.

If we go with your interpretation of the rules, what happens when a creature repeatedly enters and leaves a silenced area?  Does the creature receive a saving throw each time?

Ken


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 27, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> You are missing something. Silence doesn't have targets, it is an area spell. Just like a fireball.





The spell quite specifically says in it's description that it can be cast on a point in space or on a person or object. Fireball has no such wording. Likewise, Fireball is a spread, Silence is an emanation. Fireball's save line says "Reflex half", Silence says "Will negates or none (object)". 

Obviously you can target a Silence spell. The spell says you can.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 27, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> So, are you arguing that
> 
> 1) a creature standing in an area that would be in the area of effect of a silence spell receives a save when it is cast, even though it is cast on a fixed point in space?




Possibly. The RAW seems to suggest that.



> 2) a creature who enters an area previously affected by a silence spell gets a save upon entering it?




Again, possibly.



> 3) a creature who has a previously cast silenced spell (say, cast on the party rogue) encroach on him on his turn gets a save to ignore it's effect?




And possibly.



> This has never been my interpretation of the rules, nor of any other gamers I have played with.  I will agree,  though, that this interpretation makes the spell more palatable.
> 
> If you look at the SRD entry above, the text that mentions saves is in a subclause describing the case where the spell is cast on the creature in question.  It isn't clear to me that it's intended to apply when the silenced area is on a point in space.




It isn't clear to me at all what was intended. Looking at the RAW, though, I see an illusion spell that affects an area and allows a Will save to negate.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 27, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> The spell quite specifically says in it's description that it can be cast on a point in space or on a person or object.




That part tells us nothing about who gets a save. Also, it is "centered" on a person, object, or point in space, not cast on them.



> Fireball has no such wording.




Actually, fireball allows you to target a point in space if you make a ranged touch. 



> Likewise, Fireball is a spread, Silence is an emanation.




Both use the same rules. 



			
				Pathfinder RPG said:
			
		

> Aiming a Spell
> You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate....
> 
> Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell....
> ...




Just to be clear, silence looks like this:

School illusion (glamer); Level bard 2, cleric 2
Casting Time 1 round
Components V, S
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
*Area 20-ft.-radius emanation centered on a creature, object, or point in space*Duration 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text or none (object); Spell Resistance: yes; see text or no (object)

Hence, it uses the rules for Area spells, not targeted ones, and uses the exact same rules as, say, _fireball _or _glitterdust_. 



> Fireball's save line says "Reflex half", Silence says "Will negates or none (object)".




And thus, both spells are alike in specifying that people in the area of effect get a Saving Throw. Will negates precedes the semicolon. Objects get no saving throw, but upon seeing the text, we see that attended objects get their owner's will save. 




> Obviously you can target a Silence spell. The spell says you can.




No, you cannot. The spell is an area, although that area can be centered on a creature. The spell has no targets. See above.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 27, 2009)

thanks for this inerpretation of the rules. Even if it may not br the right one... which i am not sure... 

so for me it is like this now: sound is silenced in the are (no save for points in space) but if you succeed if you are in the area, you can still cast your spells (even if noone hears you casting because the air around you is silent, so no language dependent spells), and you get a new save when you enter (which is most surely a loose interpretation of the rules)

I disagree with that the spell cannot be targeted... it is targeted on an object and should fail at all if the object which is targeted saves... at least it should not move with it...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 28, 2009)

Salthorae said:


> I've never heard of Blasphemy as being even close to broken before...and no it doesn't look to be changed that I can see.
> 
> The only Core Demon/Devils that have _Blasphemy_ as an SLA are Balors (CL 20) & Pit Fiend (CL 18), both fixed. They are both CR 20, so realistically you shouldn't be encountering them utnil you are in the 18-20 level range (in a normal game). At which point the effects from _Blasphemy_ are either negligible (i.e. _Dazed_ for the Pit Fiend's and _Weakend/Dazed_ for the Balor's) or easily avoidable: DC 25 Will save to negate Daze and 1/2 the Str penalty... plus SR applies.
> 
> Once you should be faciing it as a creature SLA you shouldn't have to really even worry about it, let alone face a TPK from it...



I think the broken not-exactly-core-but-creatable-by-core was using the Half-Fiend template or something like that. The caster level of the spell granted by the template is determined by hit dice, and some monster types have considerably more HD than CR.

I seem to remember a case of this with a monster in the Shackled City adventure path. But it is possible it is a bad example since the template might have been applied to a monster not technically eglible for it. I remember that our cohorts (2 or more levels below us) had no chance.


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 28, 2009)

Ok, let's look at this again. Silence is a non-instantaneous area of effect spell with a Will save. Let's compare it to other non-instantaneous are of effect spells that grant a will save.



			
				PRPG said:
			
		

> SILENCE
> School illusion (glamer); Level bard 2, cleric 2
> Casting Time 1 round
> Components V, S
> ...




I understand there is no "Target" entry for this spell, but that doesn't mean it can't "target" (no capital "T") anything. "Centered on" and "cast on" aren't defined in the rules like "Targets" are, admittedly, but let's look at other similar spells and how they are worded.



			
				PRPG said:
			
		

> SLEEP
> School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 1,
> sorcerer/wizard 1
> Casting Time 1 round
> ...






			
				PRPG said:
			
		

> SONG OF DISCORD
> School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting, sonic]; Level
> bard 5
> Casting Time 1 standard action
> ...




In both of these cases, we have non-instantaneous, Will negates, area affecting spells. In both of these cases, the Area line specifically mentions "Creatures". Let's look at the rules for area affect spells again, shall we?



			
				PRPG said:
			
		

> Creatures: A spell with this kind of area affects creatures
> directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in
> an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you
> select. The area might be a spherical burst, a cone-shaped
> burst, or some other shape.




Since Silence doesn't have this wording, it is obvious that creatures in the area of effect not directly "centered" on them don't get saves to negate. It's not an individual affect. In fact Silence has wording expressing addressing how it works:



			
				PRPG said:
			
		

> SILENCE
> School illusion (glamer); Level bard 2, cleric 2
> Casting Time 1 round
> Components V, S
> ...




The spell description doesn't say "unwilling creatureS" get a save, nor does it say a successful save negates the spell for that creature only. Every other non-instantaneous AoE spell (at least the ones that allow a save) specifiy what happens to creatures entering the area after the spell is cast, but this one doesn't. It appears to me that the only time a Will save is allowed is when the creature making the save is to be designated the point of origin. In such case, that creature and ONLY that creature gets a Will save, and if successful the entire spell is kaput. The only exceptions to this are explicitly mentioned in the description, namely magic items or items in the posession of a creature that are sound sources themselves (since non-magical items not in the posession of a creature don't get saves anyway).

I'm curious Pawsplay, how do you rule Silence in your games? Honestly, do you let everyone in the area of a silence get a Will save? Are you arguing for that case, or just trying to argue how the rules are currently written and are lobbying for erratta? I can see where on first glance the "Will negates" line makes it seem that way, but the spell description goes on to pretty much explain differently. Especially since it says "no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area", implying that even if you did make a save, you still can't hear anything while in the AoE. There is no "Target" line in the spell block, but the description states "the effect is stationary
unless cast on a mobile object", which pretty much says to me it's targeting an object. Finally, it states "The spell can be centered on
a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and
moves as it moves. An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save
to negate the spell." The second line isn't immediately after the first by coincidence, it's expressly stating how and when a Will save is called for. Seems pretty clear to me, but I will admit my perception is influenced by how spells worked in all the previous editions. When in doubt, I always use the spell how it's always worked, unless clear and unambiguous evidence dictates otherwise.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 29, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> Ok, let's look at this again. Silence is a non-instantaneous area of effect spell with a Will save. Let's compare it to other non-instantaneous are of effect spells that grant a will save.




I would prefer we stick to the rules, since that's a vanishingly small group of spells. But if you insist, I'll pick _mind fog_ and _symbol of insanity_. Technically, the symbol creates a symbol, but the spell description says to treat it as a spread. Both allow Will saves to negate for anyone in the area, or anyone who enters the area.



> Since Silence doesn't have this wording, it is obvious that creatures in the area of effect not directly "centered" on them don't get saves to negate.




Obvious how? 



> The spell description doesn't say "unwilling creatureS" get a save, nor does it say a successful save negates the spell for that creature only.




The spell states Will negates, without qualification.



> Every other non-instantaneous AoE spell (at least the ones that allow a save) specifiy what happens to creatures entering the area after the spell is cast, but this one doesn't.




I agree the spell could be written more clearly.



> It appears to me that the only time a Will save is allowed is when the creature making the save is to be designated the point of origin. In such case, that creature and ONLY that creature gets a Will save, and if successful the entire spell is kaput.




Whereas I read it as, if you center on a creature and it saves, the entire spell is kaput. If you cast it on a point in space or an unattended object, it always works, but it follows the usual rules for area spells that have Will negates.



> I'm curious Pawsplay, how do you rule Silence in your games? Honestly, do you let everyone in the area of a silence get a Will save?




Honestly, up to this point, no. Now that I have read the spell more carefully, I think I have been playing it incorrectly.



> Are you arguing for that case, or just trying to argue how the rules are currently written and are lobbying for erratta? I can see where on first glance the "Will negates" line makes it seem that way, but the spell description goes on to pretty much explain differently. Especially since it says "no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area", implying that even if you did make a save, you still can't hear anything while in the AoE. There is no "Target" line in the spell block, but the description states "the effect is stationary
> unless cast on a mobile object", which pretty much says to me it's targeting an object.




Yet is scrupulously avoids the word "target." Furthermore, _sanctuary_ is a targeted spell that has Will negates, and everyone who attacks the target of a sanctuary spell gets a save, so even if the spell were targeted, it wouldn't change anything. I pointed out that it is not a targeted spell for clarity's sake, not because the interpretation I have outlined above relies on it.



> Finally, it states "The spell can be centered on
> a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and
> moves as it moves. An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save
> to negate the spell." The second line isn't immediately after the first by coincidence, it's expressly stating how and when a Will save is called for.




Those two sentences are separated by a period, so in the first place, I don't see how you can say the second line is umambiguously stating the conditions for the first. In the second place, it is possible for a Will save by the centered creature to negate the spell (entirely) and ALSO allow a negating save by everyone in the spell area. 



> Seems pretty clear to me, but I will admit my perception is influenced by how spells worked in all the previous editions. When in doubt, I always use the spell how it's always worked, unless clear and unambiguous evidence dictates otherwise.




You mean like AD&D? That can lead you astray, particularly if you try to follow the various versions of _darkness_.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Sep 29, 2009)

*well*

I'll agree with Pawnsplay that the spell isn't particularly clear.

However, in the last 9 years I've played D&D with probably 100 people, and I've never seen Silenced ruled to grant saves except when specifically targetted on an individual.  Apparently, Pawnsplay, you haven't either!

So, does it really seem likely that your current reasoning is correct?  I bet if we made a poll, there would be very few (if any) respondents who run Silence this way.

I'd be interested in hearing about how it ran in WoTC house games.

Ken


----------



## jreyst (Sep 29, 2009)

In my 30 years of playing and DMing arious versions of D&D I have always run it as the target gets a save, anyone else in the area does not. I have played with very, very many people over those 30 years and I can honestly say that I have *never* seen it ruled otherwise, even with dozens of DM's running campaigns.

Is it worded perfectly? No. Do I believe it is supposed to work as I have always seen it run over the last 30 years? Well obviously yes. Are you free to do whatever you like in games you run? Yep, go to town.

I am extremely confident that if you were to get an official answer from anyone at either Paizo, Wizards, or if you could even phone Gary from the grave himself, you would get the same answer.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 29, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> The spell states Will negates, without qualification



I disagree. The qualification is:

Will negates; see text or none (object).

My reading of this is that you see the text which describes the circumstance where a successful will save can negate the spell. You go to the text and the only situation where this option occurs is when it is targetted upon an unwilling creature. There is no other provision for a will save in the text.

Rest easy people, I think we have all being playing it right.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 29, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I disagree. The qualification is:
> 
> Will negates; see text or none (object).
> 
> My reading of this is that you see the text which describes the circumstance where a successful will save can negate the spell. You go to the text and the only situation where this option occurs is when it is targetted upon an unwilling creature. There is no other provision for a will save in the text.






Precisely. The sentence I underlined above is the part referrenced by "see text". Despite the peroid sparating the two sentences I described, it's not a paragraph break nor are they unrelated. Pawsplay is quite fixated on the lack of a "Target" line, even though "see text" usually supercedes the stat block. 

Every other non-instantaneous AoE spell has descriptive text that explicitly explains how the spell works with regards to targets in the area or entering the area. Symbol spells (bursts, not spreads, btw) and Mind Fog both have descriptive text that clearly describe when saves are called for, just like Silence does. The descriptive text in Silence might need some editing for clarity, but I've no doubt it works as I've described. Obviously Pawsplay does too, or did, assuming he's not just arguing for semantics' sakes.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 29, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I disagree. The qualification is:
> 
> Will negates; see text or none (object).
> 
> ...




Actually, just editting this to include the other situation where a will save may be offered is when an item is targetted:

"Items in a creature’s possession or magic items that emit sound receive the benefits of saves and spell resistance, but unattended objects and points in space do not."

For some reason, this does not seem as unclear to me as it does to others.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 29, 2009)

"See text" is not a qualifier on "Will negates." It is a notation, in this case, parallel to "none (object)." All that tells us that special rules apply. We know already that a Will save negates the spell for a person on whom the spell is centered and that special rules apply for objects. Incidentally, Will negates means the spell does not affect the subject. If, indeed, only the centered creature gets a save, then we get the curious circumstance that the person on whom the spell is centered is unaffected while everyone else is. Again, since the person on whom the spell is centered is not the Target, but the center of an area, their being unaffected does not mean the spell ends. 

All of this to say, the spell is probably not written up properly. If centered on a creature, it should _target_ the creature in order to work properly, if it is intended to radiate an absolute silence. Incidentally, since the silence allows no SR, it would probably make sense, too, for the spell to be a conjuration effect otherwise it's, well, cheating. 

Just for kicks, I looked up the AD&D 2.5 version of silence, 15' radius. It allows no save. However, it allows a save for an unwilling target and uses the same language as the 3.5/Pf versions, implying the conventional, "you get no save" was likely the intention of someone. However, the saving throw designation was changed to "Will negates; see text or none (object)" rather than simply no saving throw. Further, if the unwilling creature makes the save, the silence appears approximately one foot behind them. That is certainly not how the Pathfinder version operates, so extrapolating the Pathfinder version from the AD&D version is problematic, at best. 

From a design standpoint, adding "negates" to the saving throw for a spell originally provided a save only to be avoid being stickied by the spell was a bad idea. The result is neither fish, nor foul...

There is probably no really great answer to this one, since either way you interpret the spell departs from previous versions, and allowing a save for everyone in the area raises weird issues (and apparently has little pedigree) while allowing one only for the creature on whom a spell is centered also works strangely unless you use a nonstandard definition of "negates."


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 29, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> "See text" is not a qualifier on "Will negates." It is a notation, in this case, parallel to "none (object)." All that tells us that special rules apply. We know already that a Will save negates the spell for a person on whom the spell is centered and that special rules apply for objects.Incidentally, Will negates means the spell does not affect the subject.




Yeah, special rules do apply. That's how everyone else has been reading the spell the way I (and you as well, until this thread came along) have been using Silence in their games. 

Will neg (as read in the text) doesn't negate the spell for the one not-targeted-but-instead-centered, it negates the *entire *spell.



			
				Pawsplay said:
			
		

> If, indeed, only the centered creature gets a save, then we get the curious circumstance that the person on whom the spell is centered is unaffected while everyone else is. Again, since the person on whom the spell is centered is not the Target, but the center of an area, their being unaffected does not mean the spell ends.




Or the entire spell is negated as per this quote:



			
				PRPG said:
			
		

> An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save
> to negate the spell and can use spell resistance, if any.




Doesn't say "negates for that one non-target", it says "negates the spell". As in kaput.



			
				Pawsplay said:
			
		

> All of this to say, the spell is probably not written up properly. If centered on a creature, it should _target_ the creature in order to work properly, if it is intended to radiate an absolute silence.




I agree completely. I think what happened here was the 3rd ed designers were trying to shoehorn every spell into their Unified Spell Theory, and Silence was so particular about how it works it did not translate well. I think it should have been worded more clearly, but then the problem arises where the PRPG designers, building on the established 3.5 rules, probably never gave this textbook spell a second thought. 



			
				Pawsplay said:
			
		

> Incidentally, since the silence allows no SR, it would probably make sense, too, for the spell to be a conjuration effect otherwise it's, well, cheating.




Silence does allow SR. It says to three times in the spell description.


			
				PRPG said:
			
		

> Spell Resistance: yes; see text or no (object)





			
				PRPG said:
			
		

> An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save
> to negate the spell and can use spell resistance, if any. Items in a
> creature’s possession or magic items that emit sound receive the
> benefits of saves and spell resistance, but unattended objects and
> points in space do not.







			
				Pawsplay said:
			
		

> There is probably no really great answer to this one, since either way you interpret the spell departs from previous versions, and allowing a save for everyone in the area raises weird issues (and apparently has little pedigree) while allowing one only for the creature on whom a spell is centered also works strangely unless you use a nonstandard definition of "negates."




Well, IMO, the great answer is the same it's been for over 30 years. Allowing only one save for the "center-but-not-a-Target" to negate isn't a non-standard definition of "negate" either, really. The subject of a Ghoul Touch doesn't exude a cloud of noxious gas if he makes his "Fortitude: negates" save. Silence is like that, only more flexible since you can cast it in space or on objects. The only time a save is waranted for Silence is when you try to "stick" the source of the emanation on a creature or magic object.

I think we can both agree that the translation to 3rd ed was clunky, and was not addressed with the Pathfinder version either. I'm wonder if this ever came up for 3.0, and if it was answered by Sage Advice or beat to death in the old Rules forum here on ENWorld.


----------



## Humanaut (Sep 29, 2009)

My two bits, 

I've always seen the save as to avoid the spell "sticking" to you.  Nobody else gets a save because they can walk out of the area, however, if you are the target of the spell and fail your save you are silent no matter where you go.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 29, 2009)

What I meant about SR is that ordinarily, you get SR to resist non-conjuration effects. By the reading above, silence would only grant SR to the "center" of the spell. 



			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> Will neg (as read in the text) doesn't negate the spell for the one not-targeted-but-instead-centered, it negates the entire spell.




Pardon my being obstinate, but it doesn't say entire spell. It just says it negates it. Negates is a defined term, under Saving Throws, in the spell description section of the rules:



			
				Pathfinder Rules said:
			
		

> Saving Throws
> Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.
> 
> Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.




If, indeed, a creature on whom the spell is centered makes his Will save, the spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw. Hence, that person is unaffected. However, negating has no effect on people who do not make their save. No save, no negating. 

Negating a spell has no effect on the duration or effect of a spell with regard to other creatures in the area of effect, otherwise the _sleep_ spell would be very problematic. Negating does not mean the same thing as counterspelling, dispeling, or suppressing a spell, terms used elsewhere in the rules.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2009)

actually light in ADnD worked in a way that when it fails o stick on a creature, it instead sticks on the point in space a little bit behind you...

actually it was even meaner... you could put a continula light at the enemy´s nose and use it as a ghetto blind spell...

To pawsplay: i am really sure you are wrong, but i like his interpretation... still beeing able to cast a spell with only 20% chance of failure when you make your save sounds more or less fair.

edit: ok, now i am not totally sure you are wrong anymore...


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 30, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> If, indeed, a creature on whom the spell is centered makes his Will save, the spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw. Hence, that person is unaffected. However, negating has no effect on people who do not make their save. No save, no negating.
> 
> Negating a spell has no effect on the duration or effect of a spell with regard to other creatures in the area of effect, otherwise the _sleep_ spell would be very problematic. Negating does not mean the same thing as counterspelling, dispeling, or suppressing a spell, terms used elsewhere in the rules.




Call me old fashioned, but when someone is describing something to me in the singular, I tend to think of that something acting on only ONE thing. If they use the plural, they mean more than one thing. If there is room for confusion, they specify. Like how the spell uses the singular "AN unwilling CREATURE" (singular) getting "A will SAVE" (again singular), while in the very next sentence it uses the plural "ITEMS" (plural) "receive the benefit of SAVES" (again plural). 

Sleep, as you singled out, uses the plural throughout it's wording, except to specify actions taken against a single subject:



			
				PRPG said:
			
		

> SLEEP
> School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 1,
> sorcerer/wizard 1
> Casting Time 1 round
> ...




Obviously, slapping one sleeping creature won't wake them all up, so the spell is specific in it's use of singular vs plural. So, back to Silence:



			
				PRPG said:
			
		

> SILENCE
> School illusion (glamer); Level bard 2, cleric 2
> Casting Time 1 round
> Components V, S
> ...




Ergo, if the spell meant for all of the creatures in the AoE to have a Will save to negate the effects of the spell for each individually, the description would say so, as it does when discussing objects in the AoE.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 30, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> Ergo, if the spell meant for all of the creatures in the AoE to have a Will save to negate the effects of the spell for each individually, the description would say so, as it does when discussing objects in the AoE.




So is it your feeling that every object in the area gets a saving throw, as the plural was specified? "An unwilling creature" is a generic phrase; the specific would be "the unwilling creature." If it were written as "the unwilling creature," a lot of ambiguity would evaporate. I assume the generic was chosen because there is a creature, but it may or may not be unwilling, and only if it is unwilling does it get a save. Interestingly, a creature who is willing does not have to apply SR, as only unwilling creatures get saves and SR.

Nonetheless, the meaning of the word "negate" remains the same, so all creatures except the saving creature would be be affected by the spell. And there is simply no getting around that, except by errata that changes the word "negate" in the spell description to something else.


----------



## Twowolves (Sep 30, 2009)

The plural as used for items is used explicitly because A) only unattended magic items ever get a save and B) it's talking about unattended magic items that make noise, a la singing swords or self-playing harps. Every unattended noise-making magic item does get a save, IMO.

Secondly, you say they would have used "The unwiling creature" insead of "An unwilling creature". I say had they meant the plural they would have used "ANY unwilling creature", which they did not. "Negate" is a rule-defined term and it's meaning is clearly defined, except when an exception is given. I feel the wording of Silence and it's history as an oddly-behaving spell throughout the editions is such an exception.

Thirdly, creatures with SR have to use a standard action to intentionally drop their SR in order to have it not work for a given spell. You can voluntarily forego saves and actively supress your SR. Thus even willing creatures still apply SR unless they actively (standard action) supress it.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 30, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> The plural as used for items is used explicitly because A) only unattended magic items ever get a save and B) it's talking about unattended magic items that make noise, a la singing swords or self-playing harps. Every unattended noise-making magic item does get a save, IMO.




That's very interesting. So all unattended magic items get a save, while actual creatures do not. 



> Secondly, you say they would have used "The unwiling creature" insead of "An unwilling creature". I say had they meant the plural they would have used "ANY unwilling creature", which they did not.




It means the same thing. Perhaps you meant "Every unwilling creature" which would mean something different.



> "Negate" is a rule-defined term and it's meaning is clearly defined, except when an exception is given. I feel the wording of Silence and it's history as an oddly-behaving spell throughout the editions is such an exception.




I don't see anywhere in silence there the term "negated" is defined at all. 



> Thirdly, creatures with SR have to use a standard action to intentionally drop their SR in order to have it not work for a given spell. You can voluntarily forego saves and actively supress your SR. Thus even willing creatures still apply SR unless they actively (standard action) supress it.




You are correct about all that. But actually we are both wrong:



> Spell resistance has no effect unless the energy created or released by the spell actually goes to work on the resistant creature's mind or body. If the spell acts on anything else and the creature is affected as a consequence, no roll is required. Spell-resistant creatures can be harmed by a spell when they are not being directly affected.
> 
> Spell resistance does not apply *if an effect fools the creature's senses *or reveals something about the creature.




Hence, SR still only applies to creatures upon whom the spell is centered. "The benefits" obejcts receive are none unless the spell is centered on them. Silence, as a glamer, is not be subject to SR, except as provided by the spell.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 1, 2009)

I'd say unattended _noisy _items do, yeah. Of course, if a +1 shield were silenced.. who'd notice? Again, I think the spell is worded as it is because of weird stand-alone magical noisemakers.

I never understood why Silence is an Illusion(Glammer). It really should be Transmutation, IMO. 

*goes to check is 1st ed PHB*

In fact, it was Alteration back in 1st ed. And it used to specify "No save" in the spell block, and state in the description that if you tried to stick the emanation the target did get a save. Making the save centered the effect 1 foot behind the intended target.

And oddly enough, the name of the spell was "Silence, 15' Radius" but the effect line in the stat block said "30' Diameter Sphere"....


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 1, 2009)

And now it's time to pour some pints and call it a day.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 1, 2009)

Make mine a Fat Tire and it's a deal!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 1, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> I'd say unattended _noisy _items do, yeah. Of course, if a +1 shield were silenced.. who'd notice? Again, I think the spell is worded as it is because of weird stand-alone magical noisemakers.
> 
> I never understood why Silence is an Illusion(Glammer). It really should be Transmutation, IMO.
> 
> ...



you know, a 30' diameter sphere has a 15' radius?

maybe silence was nerfed in 3.0 and noone noticed... funny


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 1, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> And oddly enough, the name of the spell was "Silence, 15' Radius" but the effect line in the stat block said "30' Diameter Sphere"....




Why is it odd? Because it lists the radius in the name and the diameter in the 'stat block'? There are far weirder things in AD&D...


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 1, 2009)

I know they are the same, but why not call the spell "Silence, 30' Diameter" or have the effect line say "Area of Effect: 15' Radius". Just struck me as odd to use both terms. *shrug* 

As for weirder things in D&D, I direct your attention to "_The Forest Oracle_"....


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 1, 2009)

Actually i really thought you know it. I may have an explanation:

when you are fighting on a 2-dimensional battle map, the easiest thing to draw the circe is using a thread which is 15'' long and pin it on the point of origin.

The area in a 3-dimensional world however is a sphere, which you usually describe with its diameter. So if you are quick referencing your character sheet, 15' is the important information. If you re describing the effect, the other onformation is more important.

Actually the fireball in ADnD would have been described best with its volumina. because usually it is a half sphere with a bigger radius, because it used to spread out to its full volumina and you usually attacked someone on ground... (so fireball 20' would not have made any sense at all)


----------



## Felix (Oct 2, 2009)

Isn't this why wizards have arrayed in front of them fighters, barbarians, clerics, summoned monsters and other various obstacles to getting right next to them?

Sure _Silence_ can be a bugger, but it's not so easy as simply walking up next to the wizard and hitting him; if that were the case wizards wouldn't be long for the world at all.

If you cast it on a point in space as a counterspell, I'd let that work. I'd also give the wizard a Spellcraft check to identify _Silence_ and know that the radius is 15'. Sure, the wizard's spell was lost, but the cleric spent his round neither buffing, healing, nor meleeing.

EDIT:

On further review, the casting time of _Silence_ is 1 round, so it could never be used in this way. Furthermore, this would allow a wizard who realizes the cleric is casting _Silence_ the opportunity to disturb his casting, block his line of effect, or otherwise hamper him.



			
				Herriman the Wise said:
			
		

> The caster may not be able to define the boundaries of the silence either.



Spellcraft will tell him the radius, and when he moves far enough, hearing things again will define the boundary pretty well.

_Silence_ cast on a melee type will let that character nix the wizard's spells and provide a mobile base for the radius, but then there's the problem of getting that melee character next to the wizard; a clever wizard will have his minions (with more than 1hp) arrayed to make this less likely. 

It's powerful, but not in need of a nerf by any means.

EDIT #2:
Ok, so there's more than one page to this thread and most of that was covered. Hmm... I disagree with Pawnsplay in that the "centered on" language is equivalent to a target, but allows points in space and objects. You only get a save if it's "centered on" you, in which case the spell is canceled.

Also:
WHATTUP, SALTHORE!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 5, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> I never understood why Silence is an Illusion(Glammer). It really should be Transmutation, IMO.




Well, school classification is extremely arbitrary. I think everybody agrees on that. But I do try to set guidelines and boundaries.

Changing the qualities of the subject with regard to the five senses-- particularly sight (easiest), sounds (easy), smell, thermal, and even touch (the most difficult to master) is the purview of Illusion. 

You can either change those sensory qualities as they are perceived by the target (via changing what he "thinks" he is sensing, in which case it is _mind-affecting_) or you can actually change the sensual qualities of the target itself (usually, this will be a glamer at least, possibly even shadow-stuff if you require tactile qualities).

Illusions, in other words, can be either subjective (each viewer may view the illusion differently) or objective (the illusion "appears" the same to all viewers).

[sblock]
You could also think of the Illusion school as "hacking" the sensory information. You can either intercept the sensory information at the source, suppress it, change it, and from there pass on false information to all observers (an objective "server side" change); or you can attempt to hack the information as it arrives at each observer, and change it there (a subjective "client side" change).[/sblock]

So for example, the observers of a creature under the effects of _invisibility _do not get a saving throw because the target is objectively invisible; its visual qualities have actually changed.

I don't believe that either _invisibility _or _silence _should be Transmutation spells, as I prefer Transmutation to involve the alteration of much more tangible matter. 

Transmutation is a slippery slope: because all spells "alter reality" you can pretty much justify sliding anything into Transmutation if you don't set clear guidelines up front. (Ergo, the long stretch of design time where Transmutation spells were ubiquitous.)

I have a device I call, "the Spoon of Sufficient Size" that I use to measure the targets for various spells. Telekinetic abilities notwithstanding, Transmutation should generally not involve the manipulation of light waves, sound waves, or energy, but rather only those things that you can hold in the Spoon. (Ditto for Conjuration-- you can't conjure "fire," but you can conjure "a fiery chunk of magma.")


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 5, 2009)

If the GM does not nerf silence for the game, I think it is well within reason for casters in-world to make counters to deal with the spell. Few years back I suggested this one..

*Amplify*
_Evocation_
Level: Brd 2,  Sor/wizard 2
Components: S, M, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius emanation centered on a creature, object, or point in space
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text or none (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes; see text or no (object)

Upon the casting of this spell, everything in the area become far louder. Whispers become as loud as a normal talking and conversations become shouting matches. All listen check DCs for sounds originating in the area are reduced by 15. 

Any sonic effect within the area loud enough to cause a creature harm, such as a spell with the Sonic descriptor has the additional effect of a thunderstone. This also expends the energy of the amplify spell.

Multiple Amplify effects don’t stack. Amplify counters and dispels Silence. Silence counters and dispels Amplify.

Material component: A thunderstone.


----------



## Sadrik (Oct 5, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> If the GM does not nerf silence for the game, I think it is well within reason for casters in-world to make counters to deal with the spell. Few years back I suggested this one..
> 
> *Amplify*
> _Evocation_
> ...




I like it. However, I can see it being a level 1 spell, simply because it gives everyone a megaphone in a 20' spread, imho not really a level 2 effect. As a neat side effect it counters stealth rolls to some degree too. Nice spell.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Oct 5, 2009)

Frank, you're aware that _Amplify_ is a Bard level 1 spell in Spell Compendium p. 10, right?  It counters and dispels silence, as well as making sounds in the area louder (so it has a use other than counter-acting silence).  If you enforce listen checks for bardic music to affect allies at distances away, Amplify can be a useful spell for any bard, not just those afraid of silence.

There is also the Joyful Noise spell in that book, also Bard 1, though it has no other real uses and requires concentration to maintain, so I find it less useful overall.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 5, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Frank, you're aware that _Amplify_ is a Bard level 1 spell in Spell Compendium p. 10, right?



Nope, first time i suggested that spell was in this thread IIRC. 

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-rules/181997-bardic-music-range.html

Then here

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-rules/197134-questions-silence-spell.html

I might have seen the official spell but not really noticed it.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 7, 2009)

Salthorae said:


> I've never heard of Blasphemy as being even close to broken before...and no it doesn't look to be changed that I can see.
> 
> The only Core Demon/Devils that have _Blasphemy_ as an SLA are Balors (CL 20) & Pit Fiend (CL 18), both fixed. They are both CR 20, so realistically you shouldn't be encountering them utnil you are in the 18-20 level range (in a normal game). At which point the effects from _Blasphemy_ are either negligible (i.e. _Dazed_ for the Pit Fiend's and _Weakend/Dazed_ for the Balor's) or easily avoidable: DC 25 Will save to negate Daze and 1/2 the Str penalty... plus SR applies.
> 
> Once you should be faciing it as a creature SLA you shouldn't have to really even worry about it, let alone face a TPK from it...




Hezrou CR 11, 3/day blasphemy at caster level 13.


----------



## Ifni (Oct 7, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Hezrou CR 11, 3/day blasphemy at caster level 13.




Yeah, I've run into this with a L8 party (in an RPGA game, no less). There was much complaining.

I've also encountered CL20+ Blasphemy at L15, on half-fiends, advanced fiends, fiends with feats to bump their CL, evil clerics with beads of karma, and once a sublime chord ur-priest. By L15 you have a lot more options to deal with it, but it's still one of the nastier things to throw at a party.

This is one of the first spells I checked in Pathfinder. I approve of the fix. Adding saves makes it much less of a win-button - in 3.5 none of the effects except the banishment had saves attached.

EDIT: To anyone who doubts it was a win-button in 3.5, note that the no-save Daze denies the entire party their actions for a round. One bad guy (equal to or higher level than the PCs) uses Blasphemy repeatedly, the other one beats up the PCs. If you don't have some countermeasure that stops the first Blasphemy, or something that you can do while dazed, this is a fast road to a TPK.


----------



## amethal (Oct 9, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Hezrou CR 11, 3/day blasphemy at caster level 13.



In the Epic level DCC adventure (can't remember the name) there is a 40 HD Half-fiend that has no fiendish qualities about its appearance whatsoever and does not appear hostile when you meet him.

As written, the party wanders over and he kills them all with a blasphemy spell (characters will be about 21-24th level). The DM laughed at that idea, imagined the whole party lying dead in as anti-climatic a way as possible, and then had the monster do something else instead.


----------



## Salthorae (Oct 10, 2009)

Ifni said:


> EDIT: To anyone who doubts it was a win-button in 3.5, note that the no-save Daze denies the entire party their actions for a round. One bad guy (equal to or higher level than the PCs) uses Blasphemy repeatedly, the other one beats up the PCs. If you don't have some countermeasure that stops the first Blasphemy, or something that you can do while dazed, this is a fast road to a TPK.




why is your DM spamming Blasphemies at your party? Sounds like he's running a video game BBEG and not a villain with any depth to it...

I totally missed the Hezrou when I was looking at the Demons/Devils in the SRD, good catch. I stand by my statement that it's not a game buster though. I mean if you're fighting a Hezrou, there is supposed to be 4 11th level party members vs 1 Hezrou. So you'll take 1 round of no actions, but you still defend yourself at full AC and saves etc. and the Hezrou uses his standard action to use his Blasphemy SLA... which leaves no room for anything other than moving or quickened actions (which base monster has none of) so what does he accomplish with Blasphemy? Nothing. If this Hezrou has buddies, then it's not a CR11 encounter and will justifiably be on the verge of untenable for 4 11th level PCs

Also if you're encountering NPC's that have Karma Beads boosting their Caster Level, it probably means that the DM is not using NPC wealth to create their characters, so it should probably be a higher CR encounter, and thus either garner you more XP or not be encountered until you're higher level. 

And any DM that is putting level 15 PCs against monsters/npcs with Caster Levels 20+ is asking for TPK regardless of whether they use blasphemy against the party...

Blasphemy is really only unbalanced when used improperly by a DM and I don't think it needed the cushoning it received with Pathfinder

EDIT: How's it hangin Felix?


----------



## Voadam (Oct 10, 2009)

Salthorae said:


> why is your DM spamming Blasphemies at your party? Sounds like he's running a video game BBEG and not a villain with any depth to it...
> 
> I totally missed the Hezrou when I was looking at the Demons/Devils in the SRD, good catch. I stand by my statement that it's not a game buster though. I mean if you're fighting a Hezrou, there is supposed to be 4 11th level party members vs 1 Hezrou. So you'll take 1 round of no actions, but you still defend yourself at full AC and saves etc. and the Hezrou uses his standard action to use his Blasphemy SLA... which leaves no room for anything other than moving or quickened actions (which base monster has none of) so what does he accomplish with Blasphemy? Nothing. If this Hezrou has buddies, then it's not a CR11 encounter and will justifiably be on the verge of untenable for 4 11th level PCs
> 
> ...




I think you need to read the spell and monster again.

It casts its SLAs at caster level 13. It is only a CR 11.

If four 13 level characters face 1 hezrou alone (EL of party level -2) then they are only dazed for one round.

If four 11 level characters face 1 hezrou alone (EL of party level) they are dazed plus weakened. (remember that weakened is 2d6 no save penalty to str, not ability damage that can be cured).

If four 8th level characters face 1 hezrou alone (EL of party level +3) they are dazed plus weakened plus paralyzed. (No save paralysis for 1d10 _minutes_.)

EL of party level +3 is well within the range for suggested encounters.



> Any nonevil creature within the area of a blasphemy spell suffers the following ill effects.
> HD 	Effect
> Equal to caster level 	Dazed
> Up to caster level -1 	Weakened, dazed
> ...




Also remember that hezrou frequency is 







> Solitary or gang (2-4)



 which bumps up the EL by I forget, is it 2 per doubling of numbers?


----------



## Starbuck_II (Oct 10, 2009)

Voadam said:


> I think you need to read the spell and monster again.
> 
> It casts its SLAs at caster level 13. It is only a CR 11.
> 
> ...




Worst: it can use it 3/day.
And the recommended tactics: use Blasphemy first. Next you are Naeseated or sickened (if make save) within 10 ft of it.

So worst case scenerio for level 11 party: Blasphemy, move up to 10 feet of party. Next blast them with a spell like Choas hammer/Unholy Blight (sickened means -2 saves). That assumes they even make the naesated save DC 24 is high (unlikely wizards will).
Fighters are weakened (str penalty), sickened, and damaged (I'm assuming they make the DC 24 Fort save). Not a good way to fight a battle.

Worst case 8th level: coup de Grace 4 times.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Oct 10, 2009)

I blame the fact that WotC and Paizo had a hard-on for demons and made them insanely broken in general, more than I blame the Blasphemy spell itself for that Hezrou example.  Did you ever notice the Vrock's no-save spores bs?  Or how half the demons are "tacticians" despite the fact that fighting in strict regiments and formations or even having any particular unit cohesiveness is the exact opposite of the flavor text for demons?

--Signed a still pissed off LE devil-lover

EDIT: And those jerks get an extra resistance, too!


----------



## Votan (Oct 10, 2009)

Salthorae said:


> why is your DM spamming Blasphemies at your party? Sounds like he's running a video game BBEG and not a villain with any depth to it...




I think that any creature with high intelligence and such an ability to just drop opponents (*cough* Pit Fiend *cough*) would use it on a group of opponents.  

Equally bad spell design is how it completely stops working above the CL of the caster.  Unlike sleep, where you can make a judgement, every casting is a gamble against "no effect".  

Also note that things like cleric domains (e.g. the evil domain) can raise caster level so things that appear reasonable can get out of hand . . .


----------



## Ferrety (Oct 10, 2009)

Aah, blasphemy - the spell which made me realize that even Paizo's adventures are not all that they could be.  Going bit off topic, but wastrilith with at-will blasphemy (CL15, CR15 monster, Savage Tide) forced me to realize that I no longer wish to use 3.5  for my games  . 

Somewhat ironically, one might allow blasphemy to be negated with silence, but not all groups are battle focused enough to realize such tactics.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 10, 2009)

Ferrety said:


> Somewhat ironically, one might allow blasphemy to be negated with silence, but not all groups are battle focused enough to realize such tactics.




Hmm... You could if it were tagged with the _[sonic] _descriptor (which it probably should be).

Special Abilities :: d20srd.org

It should also be caster-level dependent, not HD dependent. 

Any spell that is not caster-level dependent, rather than HD dependent, is necessarily going to be skewed in favor of the monsters. PCs tend to advance caster level and HD at the same rate, with one rarely outstripping the other; whereas monsters typically advance HD much faster than they advance corresponding CR. 

Saving throws for other effects, for example poison or breath weapons, are based on the typical 10 + 1/2 HD + ability modifier mechanic, which also tend to outstrip the PCs ability to meet the DC-- but these, at least, are based on one-half of HD, rather than the 1:1 deadly seriousness of _blasphemy_.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 10, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Hmm... You could if it were tagged with the _[sonic] _descriptor (which it probably should be).



It is.


----------



## coyote6 (Oct 10, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Hmm... You could if it were tagged with the _[sonic] _descriptor (which it probably should be).
> 
> Special Abilities :: d20srd.org
> 
> It should also be caster-level dependent, not HD dependent.




It is caster-level dependent; you compare CL to targets' HD to determine the effect. And, as mentioned, it is a [sonic] spell. (At least in 3.5e; I didn't check Pathfinder.)

The problem is with high caster-level foes, and especially critters whose CL is based on their HD (perhaps that's what you meant?). Personally, I just capped half-fiends' CL at 20.

Oh, another handy way to avoid the _blasphemy_ -- the bardic song inspire greatness increases HD by 2 (3 if the bard has have the right feat from Eberron), which can save one's bacon.

(I ran a fight where the 19th level PCs got jumped by a pair of balors; fortunately, the paladin had a _holy avenger_, and the balor blew his CL check against the SR, which allowed the paladin and the adjacent bard to act; the bard Inspired Greatness on the cleric, boosting him to 22 HD, and the cleric deployed _silence_ FTW.)


----------



## Votan (Oct 10, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> It is caster-level dependent; you compare CL to targets' HD to determine the effect. And, as mentioned, it is a [sonic] spell. (At least in 3.5e; I didn't check Pathfinder.)
> 
> The problem is with high caster-level foes, and especially critters whose CL is based on their HD (perhaps that's what you meant?). Personally, I just capped half-fiends' CL at 20.
> 
> ...




Yes, but that is a pretty swingy situation that could easiuly have been a TPK; if the sword had not blockd the Blasphemy (say it had been sheathed) then the party would have stood there while Balors savaged them (only having an actual if 2 Balors both failed CL checks and the Balor's did not disarm the Paladin).

It seems to be a bad spell where surprise can lead to a TPK at these levels so easily!


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Oct 10, 2009)

*Agreed*

Whenever I see Blasphemy in a creature description, I change it to a 1/day ability, or delete it completely, depending on the HD of the party, replacing it with some kind of defensive ability generally.  I don't see a point in automatically paralyzing the whole party for 1d10 minutes with no save.

Like silence, it's a poorly written, easily broken spell.  

Ken


----------



## yesnomu (Oct 13, 2009)

Likewise, Plane Shift, Baleful Polymorph and Flesh to Stone should probably all be altered in some way to fit the new "no save or die" paradigm. Maybe offer a new save every round? I'm not entirely sure how they were missed, to be honest.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 13, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> Likewise, Plane Shift, Baleful Polymorph and Flesh to Stone should probably all be altered in some way to fit the new "no save or die" paradigm. Maybe offer a new save every round? I'm not entirely sure how they were missed, to be honest.




This way lies madness. If you cannot turn someone into a toad, then the design has failed and you may forget about other concerns such as "balance" and what.


----------



## Felix (Oct 13, 2009)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> Oh, another handy way to avoid the blasphemy -- the bardic song inspire greatness increases HD by 2 (3 if the bard has have the right feat from Eberron), which can save one's bacon.



It's even simpler than that: Countersong.

[sblock=Countersong]
At 1st level, a bard learns to counter magic effects that depend on sound (but not spells that have verbal components.) Each round of the countersong he makes a Perform (keyboard, percussion, wind, string, or sing) skill check. Any creature within 30 feet of the bard (including the bard himself) that is *affected by a sonic or language-dependent magical attack* may use the bard's Perform check result in place of its saving throw if, after the saving throw is rolled, the Perform check result proves to be higher. If a creature within range of the countersong is already under the effect of a non-instantaneous sonic or language-dependent magical attack, it gains another saving throw against the effect each round it hears the countersong, but it must use the bard's Perform skill check result for the save. Countersong does not work on effects that don't allow saves. Countersong relies on audible components.[/sblock]

[sblock=Blasphemy]
School evocation [evil, *sonic*]; Level cleric 7[/sblock]

Considering that an 11th level Bard's perform mod is going to be around +20, I'd say it would stand a pretty good chance to save against that hezrou.

Of course, he'd have to already be countersonging for that to help, but hey, at least it's _something_ a bard can help with.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Oct 13, 2009)

*yes*

I agree with PawnsPlay.  Baleful Polymorph and its ilk have to stay.

It's the no-save aspect of Blasphemy that i have a problem with.

Ken


----------



## trickybob (Oct 15, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Silence.
> 
> There needs to be a casterlevel check when you try to attempt to cast a spell. This is one of the single most broken spells out there, because a cleric can just castsilence on himself and kill any wizard.




Caster level check: DC 10 + spell level + caster level of the silence spell.

This should make it "possible" to cast without making it too easy. Silence needs a little something but not too much as it's only border-line strong, imo.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Oct 16, 2009)

trickybob said:


> Caster level check: DC 10 + spell level + caster level of the silence spell.
> 
> This should make it "possible" to cast without making it too easy. Silence needs a little something but not too much as it's only border-line strong, imo.



Doesn't that make the check 12 (higher if heightened) + caster minimum? An equal level caster has 40% chance of success.
Only Pally/Rangers are in trouble since they have lower caster.


----------



## Balthaczar (Oct 16, 2009)

I think Wall of Thorns could have used some alterations.


----------



## yesnomu (Oct 26, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> This way lies madness. If you cannot turn someone into a toad, then the design has failed and you may forget about other concerns such as "balance" and what.



And if you can turn someone into a toad permanently with one save, you've totally bypassed HP as an ablative resource. It's literally the same as Finger of Death, just with "polymorph" in the place of "death effect"--oh, and two levels lower.

Besides, I wasn't saying to cut these spells entirely, just to make them fit with the rest of the old save or dies. Allow a save every round, possibly with fewer/more spread apart saves for lower HD creatures. That way, you could turn most non-combat threats into a toad permanently, but stuff that can challenge you would be able to shift out.


----------



## Renfield (Oct 27, 2009)

Sounds like another example of "Wow, this spell is actually effective in situation C, G, and X! It must be nerfed." As a GM of no significant skill even I'm insulted by this mentality. Silence has done more or less the same thing for years. If you can't hack it, then perhaps you shouldn't either DM or play wizards, that's like saying "Having 1 bolt of force energy do 1d4+1 points of damage at first level and hit unfailingly is WAAAAY too powerful, lets make it an attack roll." 

Sheesh, I swear, if I walk away from this game for ten years I'll come back and suddenly all swords will do subdual damage because people complained about them being too lethal or something. Silence? Overpowered? Sheesh. There's a difference between balancing a game to make it playable and castrating it.


----------



## kinem (Oct 29, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> And if you can turn someone into a toad permanently with one save, you've totally bypassed HP as an ablative resource.




That's the point.  It's what makes such spells such a great, necessary part of D&D.  Any game without such spells would be 4e, not D&D.



> Besides, I wasn't saying to cut these spells entirely, just to make them fit with the rest of the old save or dies. Allow a save every round, possibly with fewer/more spread apart saves for lower HD creatures. That way, you could turn most non-combat threats into a toad permanently, but stuff that can challenge you would be able to shift out.




Allowing a save every round would turn it into a spell that doesn't actually do anything, other than give things which inflict hp damage more time to do so.  So it might as well just do hp damage and stop pretending to be a flavorful spell.


----------



## yesnomu (Oct 30, 2009)

kinem said:


> That's the point.  It's what makes such spells such a great, necessary part of D&D.  Any game without such spells would be 4e, not D&D.
> 
> Allowing a save every round would turn it into a spell that doesn't actually do anything, other than give things which inflict hp damage more time to do so.  So it might as well just do hp damage and stop pretending to be a flavorful spell.



You're not understanding what I'm saying: The Pathfinder devs have already shown they don't want HP as a resource to become irrelevant after 9th level. This is in light of their changes to previous save-or-dies like Glitterdust and Finger of Death. Your and my views on the change are immaterial--the spell list is inconsistent as it stands.

Not to mention, even if you love powerful, flavorful spells (and I do too, believe me), you must see there's a problem here. Finger of Death does CL*10 damage on a failed Fort save at level 7, while Plane Shift... sends the target to the Elemental Plane of Fire. Forever. At level 5. And Baleful Polymorph... turns them into a bunny. Forever. At level 5. You see what I'm saying? Rebalancing the spell levels, if nothing else, is needed.


----------



## kinem (Oct 30, 2009)

Glitterdust is a 2nd level spell so I can why it would be changed.

I don't think hp should be irrelevant as a resource, nor do I think it is even in 3.5.  It's just not the only thing that matters, so it _will_ be irrelevant _some_ of the time, just like any of the other things that can matter often don't come into play in a given battle.

I think the spell levels are based on the assumption that PCs will have access to spells like _dispel magic_.  So Baleful Poymorph isn't as powerful as killing the target, on this assumption, because if the target is a PC his friends can dispel the effect.  Plane shift should probably be level 7 for clerics also, but it requires a touch attack, and a PC could survive on most planes until rescued.

This model doesn't work so well for monsters.  Maybe we need more monsters with utility and healing magic.


----------



## Salthorae (Oct 30, 2009)

Next you guys are going to tell me that Animate Rope shouldn't be 1st level because the Strength Burst or Escape Artist checks are too high and it can simply end an encounter when it wraps up an opponent...

Why do spells that get used well always get the nerf card played on them? They aren't useful in every situation, but kudos to the player/character that has them prepped and uses them in the situations they were designed for... the whole POINT of Baleful Polymorph is to play out the Sword and Sorcery trope of "Intellect and Wizards being more mighty than Brawn" and "beware lest you anger the wizard"... if you don't have those, then you're not playing D&D anymore... you're playing a video game (a.k.a. 4E)


----------



## yesnomu (Oct 31, 2009)

Salthorae said:


> Why do spells that get used well always get the nerf card played on them? They aren't useful in every situation, but kudos to the player/character that has them prepped and uses them in the situations they were designed for... the whole POINT of Baleful Polymorph is to play out the Sword and Sorcery trope of "Intellect and Wizards being more mighty than Brawn" and "beware lest you anger the wizard"... if you don't have those, then you're not playing D&D anymore... you're playing a video game (a.k.a. 4E)



The whole point of the spell... is to reinforce class imbalance? Work with me here. (Not to mention that Dominate Person is probably a better choice against fighters/other "brawn" types, anyway.)

And please, tell me what these highly situational instances are where Baleful Polymorph is a powerful spell, where the Wizard or Druid deserves credit for their foresight. Looks like "fighting enemies" to me--better not prepare your high-level slots for something that unlikely!


----------



## Salthorae (Nov 1, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> The whole point of the spell... is to reinforce class imbalance? Work with me here. (Not to mention that Dominate Person is probably a better choice against fighters/other "brawn" types, anyway.)
> 
> And please, tell me what these highly situational instances are where Baleful Polymorph is a powerful spell, where the Wizard or Druid deserves credit for their foresight. Looks like "fighting enemies" to me--better not prepare your high-level slots for something that unlikely!




Ease off of the sarcastic attacks there yesnomu...

First of all, the point of a spell like Baleful Polymorph is to retain classic fantasy concepts like a wizard turning people into toads. If complete and utter class balance is what you're after, then go play 4E or WoW or something rather than ripping on spells that re-create classic fantasy concepts.

Secondly I should have perhaps been more specific when talking about preparing the right spells for the right times. I was talking more about spells like Silence or Glitterdust rather than Baleful Polymorph. 

I'm not sure what your vehemence against Baleful Polymorph stems from... you said that you dislike it because it "removes HP as an ablative resource", yet those characters with high HP's are 9 out of 10 times also going to have high Fort saves... so they will be the most resistant to the spell anyway. And as you said, Dominate Person is much more effective against those high HP/Fort characters anyway, it too takes away HP as an ablative resource, are you going to argue that it too needs to be nerfed or have it's spell level changed? 

You do also realize that Baleful Polymorph is subject to Dispel Magic and is only permanent if your character doesn't know someone who can cast Dispel Magic or Break Enchantment...







			
				From both SRD & PfSRD: said:
			
		

> (Under Duration) *Permanent: *The energy remains as long as the effect does. This means the spell is vulnerable to dispel magic.


----------



## yesnomu (Nov 3, 2009)

First off, I'm not talking about the use of these spells from a DMs-vs.-players perspective--the DM has and will always have a zillion ways of taking out players, most of which aren't even accessible to the PCs. I'm looking at them from the perspective of the players, and the tools that are appropriate for them to have.

Secondly, it's amusing to note that both WoW and 4e have Baleful Polymorph equivalents--sheeping people is a great Mage trick and BP is a level 15 Druid daily--but they're roughly balanced with other options available. Whereas here, BP is the goto remove-from-battle level 5 spell for Wizards and Druids. And again, it's strictly better (for the PCs' purposes) than Finger of Death, two levels higher. It's not hard to make the fantasy trope balanced, but right now it's not.

Lastly, Dominate Person is trivially easy to ward against--Protection From [Foo]-easy. So a BBEG and his important minions will definitely be protected, and a large number of potential opponents at that level aren't targetable at all. I consider it appropriately-leveled. Plane Shift, on the other hand...


----------



## kinem (Nov 3, 2009)

4e's baleful polymorph is just a "save ends" effect, which is only a way of giving a round or two of time to inflict hp damage, not a spell that actually does anything interesting.

A long term effect doesn't just end a battle - it potentially creates a situation with role playing implications.  Heck, you could carry a powerful monster as a bunny in your backpack, then let it out and cast dispel magic.  Try doing that in 4e.  Real D&D's not all about damage per round.


----------



## yesnomu (Nov 3, 2009)

kinem said:


> 4e's baleful polymorph is just a "save ends" effect, which is only a way of giving a round or two of time to inflict hp damage, not a spell that actually does anything interesting.
> 
> A long term effect doesn't just end a battle - it potentially creates a situation with role playing implications.  Heck, you could carry a powerful monster as a bunny in your backpack, then let it out and cast dispel magic.  Try doing that in 4e.  Real D&D's not all about damage per round.



*head buried in hands* OK, so it's _better_ than a remove from battle spell. Great. I'm very happy for you.

Look, I'm not championing the 4e effects system here! 3.x is rocket launcher tag, 4e is padded sumo, great, I don't care. Other games are entirely irrelevant to this discussion! I only brought them up to show that *it's possible to preserve the archetype with a less powerful spell*. A nerf is not going to cause the end of the world and make you start whining to the main tank to pull aggro off the DPS.

What I'm saying here is: _based on the evident design choices made by the PF devs_, Baleful Polymorph (and Plane Shift and Flesh to Stone and possibly Phantasmal Killer) is too big a rocket for its level. It should be nerfed--either pushed back some levels, made to allow more saves, or in some other, more imaginative fashion.


----------



## Nikosandros (Nov 3, 2009)

One idea might be to roll a certain amount of dice for "polymorph damage"; if the total exceeds the current hp of the victim, the spell takes effect. In this case, the fort save might halve the damage, instead of negating the spell.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 3, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> One idea might be to roll a certain amount of dice for "polymorph damage"; if the total exceeds the current hp of the victim, the spell takes effect. In this case, the fort save might halve the damage, instead of negating the spell.




HERO system? Is that you?


----------



## Nikosandros (Nov 3, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> HERO system? Is that you?



Indeed.  I find it a very reasonable idea... if I'm able to do enough damage to kill you, I've earned the "right" to do other nasty stuff, like turning you into a toad.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 3, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> Indeed.  I find it a very reasonable idea... if I'm able to do enough damage to kill you, I've earned the "right" to do other nasty stuff, like turning you into a toad.




That's fine as a design principle-- and I like it just fine in HERO-- but it does make the spell more powerful, not less.

Hit points are derived from Hit Dice. Saving throws are also derived from Hit Dice. There's already a "hit point" connection in every saving throw, via the advancing save bonus mechanic. Hit dice go up, saving throws go up, hit points go up. It's all the same thing.

If hit points can be ablated before casting the spell, its power potentially goes up-- unless of course the amount of damage that the spell does is somewhat less than 2 or 3 points per die.

It is nicely customizable but I am not convinced it is a silver bullet fix.

EDIT: Although I will say, the ability of the fighting classes to directly impact the ability of the spellcasters to do their job is a nice perk.


----------



## Nikosandros (Nov 3, 2009)

Well, it's was just an impromptu idea...

Anyway, one could use the same rule as in HERO where the transform damage must exceeds the initial value of hp (actually, in 6th edition, you must inflict double the amount of original body of the target).

On the other hand, one could also argue that it is fine if the spell becomes more effective once the target's hp have been ablated. At that point, casting such a spell might be a "waste" and I could just kill the target with a lower level evocation spell.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 3, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> Well, it's was just an impromptu idea...




True, and a good one, and I appreciate the thought-provoking.



> Anyway, one could use the same rule as in HERO where the transform damage must exceeds the initial value of hp (actually, in 6th edition, you must inflict double the amount of original body of the target).




You're about 3 editions ahead of me then. 

Double the amount of BODY can also be accomplished by halving the base damage it does...



> On the other hand, one could also argue that it is fine if the spell becomes more effective once the target's hp have been ablated. At that point, casting such a spell might be a "waste" and I could just kill the target with a lower level evocation spell.




Agreed, but I personally find it easier to just say, "Creatures that are _bloodied _suffer a -4 penalty to their saving throw."

Of course what this thread entails is curtailing such powerful spells, not increasing it.

To reduce the efficacy of Save-or-Die spells, you would want to grant a +4 bonus to the saving throw under certain conditions. Such effects already exist for a lot of spells (particularly mind-affecting spells: are you in combat? is the spell going to kill you if you obey? etc.) so it is not a big stretch at all to go with the following:

Creatures with more than 50% of their hit points remaining receive a +4 bonus to their saving throw.


----------



## kinem (Nov 3, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> *head buried in hands* OK, so it's _better_ than a remove from battle spell. Great. I'm very happy for you.




It's better, but from a game play perspective.  Games with outlets for creativity like that are more interesting.  That has nothing to do with power balance.



> What I'm saying here is: _based on the evident design choices made by the PF devs_, Baleful Polymorph (and Plane Shift and Flesh to Stone and possibly Phantasmal Killer) is too big a rocket for its level.




The evident design choice they made was to leave in those spells, so your argument doesn't make any sense.  If the designers had wanted to do what you suggest, they would have.  Obviously they did not want to.



Wulf Ratbane said:


> Creatures with more than 50% of their hit points remaining receive a +4 bonus to their saving throw.




If you want to nerf spellcasters, this might make sense in some cases, though not always.  It's not bad.

Why not just accept that hit point damage does not always have to be the focus of the game?

I guess it's because some classes only do hit point attacks, but I don't see them being irrelevant except in a small fraction of encounters.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Nov 4, 2009)

A fine game balance for baleful polymorph would be to make it a ritual (or 10 minute casting time spell in non-4e games) performed on a helpless individual.  Since you have already "beaten" the living thing in question to keep it helpless for 10 mintues, then have fun turning the nemesis that has taunted you all these years into a toad and keeping him alive.

That way you can have your trope and balance it too.

DS


----------



## EroGaki (Nov 4, 2009)

Sabathius42 said:


> A fine game balance for baleful polymorph would be to make it a ritual (or 10 minute casting time spell in non-4e games) performed on a helpless individual.  Since you have already "beaten" the living thing in question to keep it helpless for 10 mintues, then have fun turning the nemesis that has taunted you all these years into a toad and keeping him alive.
> 
> That way you can have your trope and balance it too.
> 
> DS






That's not balance. That's pointless.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Nov 5, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> That's not balance. That's pointless.




Kill a BBEG, he just gets resurrected and comes for revenge and you get 5 style points.

Turn a BBEG into a frog and keep him in a jar with you he can't be resurrected, and you get 40 style points (75 style points if the GM does a plot where the BBEG henchmen liberate said frog and he comes for revenge).

Polymorph doesn't have to be a combat applicable spell to be useful.

DS


----------



## kinem (Nov 6, 2009)

Sabathius42 said:


> A fine game balance for baleful polymorph would be to make it a ritual (or 10 minute casting time spell in non-4e games) performed on a helpless individual.  Since you have already "beaten" the living thing in question to keep it helpless for 10 mintues, then have fun turning the nemesis that has taunted you all these years into a toad and keeping him alive.




So what you are saying is that balance = bad?  That we can't have it without nerfing spells to the point of ridiculousness?  Very well, then let's have no more talk of balance here!

Too bad, here I had thought Pathfinder had found reasonable ways to make balance sort of work without ruining the game ...

The only thing left to talk about, now, is how to put all of the good old school stuff back into the game, without worrying about that fun-destroying balance crap 

First up: How can we make the 10' pole a must-have item again?  Maybe you should have to describe what you do in-character instead of rolling search checks   I'm serious - that can rock.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Nov 6, 2009)

kinem said:


> So what you are saying is that balance = bad?  That we can't have it without nerfing spells to the point of ridiculousness?  Very well, then let's have no more talk of balance here!
> 
> Too bad, here I had thought Pathfinder had found reasonable ways to make balance sort of work without ruining the game ...
> 
> ...




The reason the term "save-or-die" was invented is because there are a WHOLE lot of spells that give the opponent one chance to save or they are effectively killed.  It doesn't matter if you turn them to stone, into a frog, disintegrate them, teleport them into a sun, freeze their body so your minotaur fighter can coup-de-grace their head off, or simply delete the from the universe, the end result in game terms is someone failed one die roll and then were taken out of the fight permanantly.

To some folks (myself included) any sort of save-or-die mechanic isn't good game design.

You can move spells around in what level they are gained, but in the end, if you don't address the fundamental save-or-die mechanic, you are just delaying what (to some) is a part of the game that is not enjoyable.

That being said, 4e has swing the power ability of a LOT of spells too far in the other direction (ala Baleful Polymorph having a 55%+ chance of ending each round) making them not do what they originally did (turning someone into a toad permanently).

The BALANCE I would propose if I were making a fixed version of D&D would be to have Baleful Polymorph function as it does in 4e is used DURING combat and function as it did in 1-3e if used out of combat.

Similarly I would have BLINDNESS, DEAFNESS, PETRIFICATION, and any number of similar spells work in much the same way.  Short term used in combat and permanent if used out of combat.

Finally, only fools purchase 10' poles.  Everyone knows what you should do is purchase a 10' ladder (which costs less), disassemble it, and have 2 10' poles and 5 wooden stakes.

DS


----------



## kinem (Nov 6, 2009)

Sabathius42 said:


> To some folks (myself included) any sort of save-or-die mechanic isn't good game design.




In the real world, fighting means a chance of being shot dead.  Thus, it takes guts and you avoid it unless there is a good reason.

D&D characters are supposed to have guts which they demonstrate by heroically fighting the good fight, or brains which they demonstate by finding another way.  Or both, which they demonstate by finding smart ways to fight.

If there is no chance they will be shot dead, even in the big final battles, they don't need guts or brains to fight and are no true heroes.

I'm not saying every battle has to have save-or-dies, but it is an important feature of the game, not a bug, when used on occasion.  The key is you have to know in advance that it's a possibility, and either accept that risk or run away.  That's role playing.

And most battles don't feature enemy wizards; fighter-types like ogres are far more common foes.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 6, 2009)

kinem said:


> In the real world, fighting means a chance of being shot dead.  Thus, it takes guts and you avoid it unless there is a good reason.
> 
> D&D characters are supposed to have guts which they demonstrate by heroically fighting the good fight, or brains which they demonstate by finding another way.  Or both, which they demonstate by finding smart ways to fight.
> 
> ...




That's just an argument for save or die monster/NPC powers to be used against PCs. 

Its not an argument that it is good to give PCs save or die attack spells to use against BBEGs.

PC foes don't need to be true heroes.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 7, 2009)

Sabathius42 said:


> The BALANCE I would propose if I were making a fixed version of D&D would be to have Baleful Polymorph function as it does in 4e is used DURING combat and function as it did in 1-3e if used out of combat.




If that is what is required for balance, then so much the worse for balance. I cannot digest that degree of illogic.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 8, 2009)

kinem said:


> In the real world...




That is the Godwin's Law equivalent of RPG discussions. Instant FAIL.

But for the record, I agree 100% with this:



> I'm not saying every battle has to have save-or-dies, but it is an important feature of the game, not a bug.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Nov 8, 2009)

I noticed that the beginning of this thread started with silence and I am not sure if that ever got resolved, and further more I am unsure if whaat I am about to propose was ever mentioned, but:

Feat- sudden silence allows any one spell memorized by the wizard to be cast (at original level) on the spot silent. Wheather the wizard is being sneaky (in the case  of my wizard in Wirtlestaff's wizard thread) or as an emergerncy departure( expiditious retreat was mentioned, but further up the line is dimension door and teleport) cast with the feat's effect: poof, one escaped wizard.


----------



## kinem (Nov 9, 2009)

Voadam said:


> That's just an argument for save or die monster/NPC powers to be used against PCs.
> 
> Its not an argument that it is good to give PCs save or die attack spells to use against BBEGs.




If NPCs can do something, PCs should be able to do the same thing.  Players find that fair and like to turn the tables like that.  It also adds to the simulationism of the game.

If you want another argument for it: Not all classes should work the same way, to make the game more interesting.  Fighter-types hack away at hit points.  Hence the need for classes that can use save-or-dies instead of hack-away attacks.



Wulf Ratbane said:


> That is the Godwin's Law equivalent of RPG discussions. Instant FAIL.




Stating that Godwin's law BS is an 'instant fail' on _your_ part, Wulf.  You think it makes you look smart?  It makes you look like an idiot in my book.  (Not saying you are one - I'm sure you're not.)

D&D is a simulationist game, aka an RPG.  If it weren't, it wouldn't be so  much fun for people like me.  Wulf, your BS way of thinking - that gamism trumps all - is what led to the dryness that is 4e.

Hence real world comparisons are important to the game.  Sure, it adds magic, monsters, and superhuman feats and many mechanics are rather abstract and simplified.  But in any discussion of game design for D&D, the baseline to start with is the real world situation, which can then be modified as desired if there are good reasons.  For example, Monte Cook and the other 3e designers are proud to think that they simulated fairly well what sorts of actions can be taken by a real person during a 6-second interval.


----------



## kinem (Nov 9, 2009)

Scott DeWar said:


> Feat- sudden silence allows any one spell memorized by the wizard to be cast (at original level) on the spot silent. Wheather the wizard is being sneaky (in the case  of my wizard in Wirtlestaff's wizard thread) or as an emergerncy departure( expiditious retreat was mentioned, but further up the line is dimension door and teleport) cast with the feat's effect: poof, one escaped wizard.




Yes.  Most spellcasters (PC or NPC) should have some way to cast a silent spell, or a few of them.

One way to nerf silence (though I don't think it's really needed) might be to make silent spellcasting possible for anyone by making a concentration check.


----------



## GlassJaw (Nov 9, 2009)

kinem said:


> For example, Monte Cook and the other 3e designers are proud to think that they simulated fairly well what sorts of actions can be
> taken by a real person during a 6-second interval.




Does it take you 6 seconds to drink a potion?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Nov 9, 2009)

kinem said:


> You think it makes you look smart?  It makes you look like an idiot in my book.



I think you need to take a deep breath.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Nov 9, 2009)

kinem said:


> Hence real world comparisons are important to the game.  Sure, it adds magic, monsters, and superhuman feats and many mechanics are rather abstract and simplified.  But in any discussion of game design for D&D, the baseline to start with is the real world situation, which can then be modified as desired if there are good reasons.




In the real world, actually getting HIT by most of the weapons in the PHB would either take you out of the fight (at best for you) to instantly kill you by causing massive damage (at worst for you).  Instead in D&D it takes off some HP.

In the real world, an assassin successfully sneaking up behind someone in shoving a stiletto in their throat kills them instantly and silently.  Instead in D&D it takes off some HP.

In the real world, falling 30 feet onto cobblestone would either cause massive fractures (at best for you) or just outright kill you (at worst for you). Instead in D&D it takes off some HP.

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point.

There are a LOT of "in the real world" things that D&D doesn't simulate correctly.  Some things are handwaved because they aren't important (getting stomach bugs from drinking from a creek) or handwaved because of balance (and yes, balance even applies to older versions of D&D) by the implementation of the HP mechanic.  Why would someone argue that its fair that weapons get "nerfed" by having to go through the HP mechanics and then at the same time complain about how unfair it is that magic has to go through the same mechanic?

I am all for having different feels for magic versus mundane.  I think it would go a long way to making magic feel different, and exciting.  That mechanic doesn't have to be save-or-die.  There is nothing particularly "magical" about save-or-die, its just unfun.  It would be unfun if the evil assassin trying to kill me made me save vs. FORT or die.  It would be unfun if the evil barbarian hit me with a greatsword and I had to save vs. REF or die.  It is equally unfun if the evil wizard commands me to slit my own throat and I have to save vs. WILL or die.

Ultimately, if you feel that you enjoy save-or-die, then good for you and your team.  Everyone plays D&D differently.  Pathfinder might be what you are looking for.  If you don't like save-or-die then great, look into 4e or some other product that doesn't have the same mechanic.  The original topic asked "Spells which were not properly nerfed" to which some replied "I think the save-or-die spells should have been nerfed".  That's just some persons opinion.

Personally, I think save-or-die spells should be nerfed because I do not think its good game balance (or design if the word balance makes you crabby) to have equal level enemies taken out because of one die roll.  That applies to magic, weapons, natural sources, etc...  The reason is because save-or-die (to me) is not fun.  I play D&D to have fun.

DS


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Nov 9, 2009)

*well*

Sabathius, what are you complaining about?  There's a game out there designed just the way you seem to think D&D should be.  It's called 4E.

FYI, Assassin strikes didn't just take off some HP in 1E.  They rolled on a table to see if they killed you.  And even in 3E, you have to make a FORT save or die.  In other words, Save or Die.

We have two competing game systems now which largely serve different gaming philosophies.  4E largely caters to the gamist crowd that wants to be having fun every round.  Pathfinder is more simulationist.  We all have choices.  What's wrong with that?

Ken


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 11, 2009)

If a barbarian hits you hard enough, you will have to save or die.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 11, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> If a barbarian hits you hard enough, you will have to save or die.




He'll have to hit you harder in Pathfinder, because they nerfed death by massive damage!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 11, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> If a barbarian hits you hard enough, you will have to save or die.



Most of the time, you will probably just die, though, because you didn't have the hit points in the first place.


----------



## ancientvaults (Nov 11, 2009)

I don't see anything wrong with a Save or Die situation since that is one of the consequences of not being a peasant or villager. Once you are insane enough to strap on weapons and armor and go out into the wilderness to explore dungeons and kill monsters then you forfeit the safe and comfortable life of a baker or blacksmith. 

As far as the comparison to 4e as a fun game and Pathfinder being mere simulation, that is pretty laughable. Any game that you and your group likes is a fun game, whether it is Risk, OD&D, Pathfinder or 4E. My group tried 4E, yet it was not fun at all for any of us, so we went back to the basics. Pathfinder looks streamlined enough to be where we want to be for a more modern game. All of us found 4E to be less than fun, but, to each their own. No edition is better than any other.


----------



## Sylrae (Nov 14, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> Does it take you 6 seconds to drink a potion?



This question seriously depends on how large we define the standard potion as. 
I'm seeing a 6 second potion, as like 3 to 4 mouthfuls around 2 oz. 5 or 6 mouthfuls if im trying to drink it quickly. Assuming a potion goes down like vodka, maybe 3oz per potion.

~
While I can't stand 4e, I AM inclined against Save or Suck. I simply don't think you should be taken out of the game (or have the ability to take someone out of the game) without wearing down someones defenses, or multiple rolls.

(We pulled death by massive damage too, but added in exploding crits).

That being said: simple Save or Suck fix: If you fail your save, you do another save. This time with a -2 penalty (-4 if you think I'm being too generous). Suddenly the Save or Suck spells require an extra save before the suck. And honestly, that's as much of a nerf as I need to make those spells palatable. *shrug*. Also, maybe someone could do the math for me and see how much worse that makes them, and then adjust spell levels accordingly based on how likely they are to kill appropriately powered creatures compared to other kill stuff spells of the same level.

If you want to be easier on them mechanically but sadistic Psychologically, allow them to keep making saves, giving them additional -4 penalties for each one. eventually they either passed it (which gets less and less likely as time goes on and the player gets more and more filled with despair), or they reach a -20 to -23 modifier, and fail it utterly.

For some of the ones that kill you outright, other nerfs exist. Here are two I've seen.
- You're dropped to -1 Hit Points, and bleeding.
- Do a fairly large amount of ability score damage (which CAN kill you)

It's all a matter of how much you mean to nerf them. If you nerf them too much they become either useless or need to be a lower level.

OR!: Use the action point rules in trailbazer. BBEGs and Players will both have them, and in the event of a Save or Suck, they can spend an action point to redo the save, or they can spend it in advance to add a d6 to the save. 

I combined Action Points with oWoD's Nature and Demeanor Archetypes, so players regain an Action Points when they successfully do one of like 35 things (and they picked which one will apply to them at character creation based on their character's personality).

Mind you, that doesn't mean that all the spell levels couldnt use some tweaking. Baleful Polymorph is a crazy good level 5 spell, and could probably be bumped to 6 or 7. One time I saw one player polymorph another into a bunny, and then stick him in a bag of holding. Just to be mean. Then he would do things like throw in a house cat for a round or 2. keep the bunny alive and torture him. Nobody knew what was up with the bunny until it was over, and the GM was the kind who let it go on for more than a session. 

Personally I'm not a fan of negative levels. Energy Drain, and level loss from being resurrected are crap. This is not a balance/power gripe. This is a "OMG IT SLOWS THINGS DOWN TOO MUCH" gripe.


----------



## Psychotic Jim (Nov 14, 2009)

Regarding some of the more troublesome instant transformation spells (baleful polymorph, flesh to stone), would it be possible to make them a bit... staged or progressive?  By that I mean, instead of casting the spell and *bing* the targets are instantly transformed all at once, the target of such a spell would gradually over a few rounds be transformed.  Penalties would steadily accrue as parts of the body would transform.  

So like, with flesh to stone, first you might get some dex or movement penalties as your legs would begin to turn to stone, then you might get some attack penalties as your arms begin to petrify, and so on until you're a complete stone statue.  Perhaps the caster would have to sustain the spell as a free action, and if he/she lost it, the transformation would stop.  A victim of incomplete polymorph/flesh to stone could still suffer the penalties of the incomplete transformation or could revert back to the original form, depending on how the game rules needed to be balanced.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 14, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> He'll have to hit you harder in Pathfinder, because they nerfed death by massive damage!




In Pf, he probably can hit you harder.


----------



## EroGaki (Nov 15, 2009)

Psychotic Jim said:


> Regarding some of the more troublesome instant transformation spells (baleful polymorph, flesh to stone), would it be possible to make them a bit... staged or progressive?  By that I mean, instead of casting the spell and *bing* the targets are instantly transformed all at once, the target of such a spell would gradually over a few rounds be transformed.  Penalties would steadily accrue as parts of the body would transform.
> 
> So like, with flesh to stone, first you might get some dex or movement penalties as your legs would begin to turn to stone, then you might get some attack penalties as your arms begin to petrify, and so on until you're a complete stone statue.  Perhaps the caster would have to sustain the spell as a free action, and if he/she lost it, the transformation would stop.  A victim of incomplete polymorph/flesh to stone could still suffer the penalties of the incomplete transformation or could revert back to the original form, depending on how the game rules needed to be balanced.




Slow progressive effects are another 4E construct I'd prefer never to exist. If Pathfinder spells became like that, you could get rid of the "save" in "save or suck." Because the spells would just suck.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 16, 2009)

kinem said:


> If NPCs can do something, PCs should be able to do the same thing.  Players find that fair and like to turn the tables like that.  It also adds to the simulationism of the game.




If the god Appollo is able to foretell the future then pcs should be able to as well for simulationism?

If a medusa can turn you to stone with a gaze and a dragon can breathe poison gas then a PC wizard should be able to do so as well?

Isn't simulation satisfied by using the non human power from its source, i.e. perseus cutting off the medusa's head to use its power against the Kraken.



> If you want another argument for it: Not all classes should work the same way, to make the game more interesting.  Fighter-types hack away at hit points.  Hence the need for classes that can use save-or-dies instead of hack-away attacks.




That's an argument for making varied attack mechanics. Not specifically for save or dies.

High damage single attacks, low damage multiple attacks, ranged versus melee, high accuracy low damage versus high damage and low accuracy, area of effect versus single target, at will versus 1/day versus rechargeable powers, conditional only modifiers, random or modifiable versus stable, are all different mechanics that classes could vary by and still use just hit point attacks.

Even with desiring non-hp attack mechanics you don't have to go with save or die. Attacks that cause penalties, negate magic, attack ability scores, attack spell slots, cause temporary conditions, etc. are all viable options.

I'm looking for the argument that a PC wizard using his normal prepared attack spell to magically bypass hp and one shot the dragon/BBEG is a desirable thing for the game.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Nov 17, 2009)

Voadam said:


> If the god Appollo is able to foretell the future then pcs should be able to as well for simulationism?
> 
> If a medusa can turn you to stone with a gaze and a dragon can breathe poison gas then a PC wizard should be able to do so as well?
> 
> Isn't simulation satisfied by using the non human power from its source, i.e. perseus cutting off the medusa's head to use its power against the Kraken.




The argument is that the same options should be possible.  If a PC attained a high level of god-hood, he should be able to try for Apollo's set of powers.  if a PC wanted to make a medusa, he could have the same exact power an NPc medusa would have.  And so on...  Things without an ECL listed should either be 1) too high an ECL to be playable in a typical game or 2) unplayable due to it's nature; such as not having human-type sentience or control, like a chaos beast or a swarm.  Even some demons get a listed LA, implying it's feasible to play them, despite their anarchic and violent tendencies that would likely make it hard for them to fit into an adventuring party, so the "bar" isn't even set particularly high.

It's when in 4E an NPC kobold has different racial abilities than a PC kobold, for example, that gets simulationists upset.

EDIT: There's probably a 3rd category, for things that just have such tremendous or aberrant abilities relative to their HD / hp, that any ECL you could possibly assign them that would be balanced for what they could do, they'd just have no hope of ever surviving an equivalent level challenge.  I'll call it "wildly uneven characteristics."


----------



## Sylrae (Nov 17, 2009)

Voadam said:


> I'm looking for the argument that a PC wizard using his normal prepared attack spell to magically bypass hp and one shot the dragon/BBEG is a desirable thing for the game.



 This is true. Personally, I'd argue that most save or die (or similar effects) could be done either like ability drain, or could be done like wraith touch attack (ability drain that results in a secondary effect, such as turning into a wraith, turning to stone, etc). Then you scale the amount of ability damage to scale the power level... Just a thought. (My spell does 2d8 CON Damage, if youre reduced to 0 or less, youre turned to stone).
And then Drop Energy Drain and replace it with an effect like the above because, well, IME,  Level loss effects are like this:

Permanent 
Time Drain:
You lose a level. Stop the game for everyone else for 20 minutes while you update your character sheet.

Temporary
Go Calculate what you didn't have before you gained this level. Keep track of that so that we know you don't have it. Again, halt the game for 20 minutes to do so.



StreamOfTheSky said:


> The argument is that the same options should be possible.  If a PC attained a high level of god-hood, he should be able to try for Apollo's set of powers.  if a PC wanted to make a medusa, he could have the same exact power an NPc medusa would have.  And so on...  Things without an ECL listed should either be 1) too high an ECL to be playable in a typical game or 2) unplayable due to it's nature; such as not having human-type sentience or control, like a chaos beast or a swarm.  Even some demons get a listed LA, implying it's feasible to play them, despite their anarchic and violent tendencies that would likely make it hard for them to fit into an adventuring party, so the "bar" isn't even set particularly high.



Even without LAs listed, people will want to play them. You ever see anyone want to play a Dryad Druid? (That's about all they can play with the tree restriction unless youe always in a forest ~ cause then the dryad can animate her tree). Or ever see anyone want to play a demon? a bunch of those don't have listed LAs. Additionally, LA sucks. lol.

If youre going to give the character all of the monster's abilities, my advice, LA = CR.
Change Immunities to resistances in many instances, and change wacky at-will powers to wacky powers with x/day.
You'll have more playable characters.

If you'll do things the harder way, use UK's CR guide to price out the monster at each level. Make a Base Race (0.5-0.7 for PFRPG, or .3-.55 for 3.5e), then list all the abilities they get, and find the prices for them.
Figure out skill points per level, HD per level, Saves, and then start adding HD until you get to a point where you have the abilities spread out enough to have the levels be around the right power level 1.1672/level (not counting base race).

If you're using Trailblazer, you might be well served to convert the SLAs the creature has into a class spell list (and add a few more spells).




Voadam said:


> It's when in 4E an NPC kobold has different racial abilities than a PC kobold, for example, that gets simulationists upset.



Heh. Yep. Well, I can deal with 'very close, but slightly different'. If someone plays a goblin, I doubt they would object to a small power bump to make them on par with humans, in terms of power. (skill bonuses or something).


----------



## Voadam (Nov 17, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> The argument is that the same options should be possible.  If a PC attained a high level of god-hood, he should be able to try for Apollo's set of powers.  if a PC wanted to make a medusa, he could have the same exact power an NPc medusa would have.  And so on...  Things without an ECL listed should either be 1) too high an ECL to be playable in a typical game or 2) unplayable due to it's nature; such as not having human-type sentience or control, like a chaos beast or a swarm.  Even some demons get a listed LA, implying it's feasible to play them, despite their anarchic and violent tendencies that would likely make it hard for them to fit into an adventuring party, so the "bar" isn't even set particularly high.
> 
> It's when in 4E an NPC kobold has different racial abilities than a PC kobold, for example, that gets simulationists upset.
> 
> EDIT: There's probably a 3rd category, for things that just have such tremendous or aberrant abilities relative to their HD / hp, that any ECL you could possibly assign them that would be balanced for what they could do, they'd just have no hope of ever surviving an equivalent level challenge.  I'll call it "wildly uneven characteristics."




Fine, a player who exceeds epic levels and ascends to becomes a god of prophecy should ideally be able to give prophecies like Apollo and if you want to allow PC medusas then there is a desire for them to be full medusas.

I think the relevant focus for our discussion though is on ubiquitous save or die PC spells (things that can be prepared every day by core class human PCs). Pathfinder changes a lot to save each round or save or take a lot of damage. A few are still there though as save or die.

So what are the arguments saying a PC baleful polymorph that can bypass hp and magically one shot a BBEG on a failed save is good for the game?

Some have said in their experience this has been great when it happens, everyone cheered and there was cake. 

A contrary viewpoint is that it is anticlimatic for BBEG scenes and puts the save or die casters as the bigshots of the party in terms of power and dramatic effects in combat while marginalizing others as support until the caster gets off their one combat ending spell and their role as handling the scruff so the casters can save the big guns for the important fights.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 17, 2009)

Voadam said:


> A contrary viewpoint is that it is anticlimatic for BBEG scenes....




That would indeed be anticlimatic, which is why it won't ever happen in a game I'm running. I don't need to change the way spells work to accomplish that goal. I just need to change the way BBEGs work.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Nov 17, 2009)

*one shotting the BBEG*

In my experience, the person who is mostly unsatisfied when the BBEG gets oneshotted is the DM.  And since I'm generally the DM, I'm OK with it happening occasionally.  The cheering and the cake from my players make up for it!

I think the whole thing about Baleful Polymorph is overblown;  FORT saves scale up pretty well on monsters.  Glitterdust (which Pathfinder nerfed) was a much bigger problem.

Ken


----------



## Voadam (Nov 17, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> In my experience, the person who is mostly unsatisfied when the BBEG gets oneshotted is the DM.  And since I'm generally the DM, I'm OK with it happening occasionally.  The cheering and the cake from my players make up for it!
> 
> I think the whole thing about Baleful Polymorph is overblown;  FORT saves scale up pretty well on monsters.  Glitterdust (which Pathfinder nerfed) was a much bigger problem.
> 
> Ken




Its pretty easy to find save or die for will save ones too. Color spray and sleep don't have the save each round that glitterdust now does and impact the game at 1st level while dominate person similarly does not at the 5th level spell range.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Nov 18, 2009)

Save-or-die spells also make rotten traps.

I was running the Worlds Largest Dungeon and it had a Phantasmal Killer trap in a hallway.  The party member running point failed his TWO saves and keeled over dead.

The players thought I was joking at first, not wanting to believe he really did just scream and fall over dead for no reason, but soon came to realize that he was, indeed, dead.

It really wasn't fun on the GM side of the screen, nor was it very fun for the player who died who was forced to roll up another character and waste the rest of the night before I could insert him into the story.

DS


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 18, 2009)

Sabathius42 said:


> Save-or-die spells also make rotten traps.
> 
> I was running the Worlds Largest Dungeon and it had a Phantasmal Killer trap in a hallway.  The party member running point failed his TWO saves and keeled over dead.




Rotten traps, and rotten tactics by the bad guys. I avoid all-or-nothing effects when DMing most of the time, and then usually put them in play when I know the PCs have a counter on hand.

As to the _phantasmal killer_ trap, yeah, gotta agree that's pretty lame. A _monster summoning IV_ trap would be more interesting.


----------



## Sylrae (Nov 18, 2009)

For dealin with save or suck, here's something I came up with earlier today. obviously needs refinement and testing. But it could lead to a valid fix if someone did the probability math or alot of playtesting.

Here is the post


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 26, 2009)

Sylrae said:


> Here is the post




I've been following that thread. It's an interesting read, but such a thorough overhaul of magic is way beyond what I'd be willing to implement in a game. I like to make things simpler and to keep the learning curve from approaching anything resembling steep.



In other news, this thread has spawned a blog post. Spooky, huh?


----------

