PDA

View Full Version : Disintegrate sucks



taltamir
2009-11-23, 08:11 PM
Disintegrate is pretty famous, a very archetypical spell. And a total trap.

Flesh to Stone is the same level as disintegrate, the same school, both allow SR, and both are a fort save.

So what is the difference?
Advantages of Flesh to Stone:
1. Disintegrate is not guaranteed to "kill" the creature on a failed fort save, it deals 2d6 / CL, up to 40d6 max damage. Flesh to Stone doesn't care if you have a million HP, you fail, you are a rock forever (which can then be broken to kill you)
2. Disintegrate requires a ranged touch attack, flesh to stone just hits.

"Advantages" of Disintegrate:
1. Disintegrate will deal 5d6 damage on a successful save. woefully little at this level.
2. Disintegrate can be used to dig, destroy unattended objects, destroy walls of force and force cages, etc.
3. Disintegrate can affect golems and other non fleshy monsters.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-23, 08:14 PM
Immunity to petrification is common enough to make it an issue.

Schylerwalker
2009-11-23, 08:16 PM
Combine Flesh to Stone and Disintegrate. Damn near auto-kill anything, and then destroy the evidence.

Or just use Disintegrate. I personally think Disintegrate is a very powerful spell (Though certainly not overpowered). Flesh to Stone is no better.

Signmaker
2009-11-23, 08:17 PM
Break Enchantment. Stone to Flesh. Polymorph Any Object.

What happens to a creature disintegrated? You have to true rez them back to a non-dust state.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-23, 08:21 PM
3. Disintegrate can affect golems and other non fleshy monsters.

That's big. Real big when you're at high level and immunities are running around like mad.

But then again, it isn't enough to make Disintegrate good.

EDIT:

Disintegrate is pretty famous, a very archetypical spell.
Wait, what? Why was I unaware of this?

Gnomo
2009-11-23, 08:22 PM
Disintegrate is utilitarian, it can make holes anywhere, destroy a wall of force or a forcecage!

I think it's the only way out of the classic combo: Dimensional Lock + Forcecage.

Fizban
2009-11-23, 08:22 PM
You can't loot a petrified creature, their gear turns to stone. Disintigrate leaves a pile of dusty clothing and weapons.

Berserk Monk
2009-11-23, 08:24 PM
1. Disintegrate is not guaranteed to "kill" the creature on a failed fort save, it deals 2d6 / CL, up to 40d6 max damage. Flesh to Stone doesn't care if you have a million HP, you fail, you are a rock forever (which can then be broken to kill you)

Do the rules say you die in stone form? I thought you were inorganic matter. It be like killing (taking the life of) a chair or mug. Besides, wouldn't that be a disadvantage if it dies. That means it can be resurrected, were as if it's just inorganic matter, it's in a state of nonliving. Resurrection has no effect.

tonberrian
2009-11-23, 08:24 PM
Disintigrate works (fabulously) on things without a Con score. Flesh to Stone doesn't. That's two whole types of creatures, there.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 08:28 PM
when in stone form you are not dead, you do not register as alive for spells.
When depetrified you are alive.

As for the suggestion that people can cast stone to flesh or break enchantment to undo it... so? if you are concerned then destroy the statue.

If you want to LOOT the statue then:
1. Flesh to stone
2. Break off its head
3. Stone to flesh ("injuries" sustained while in stone form remain)
Congrats, you not got all the loot.


Disintigrate works (fabulously) on things without a Con score. Flesh to Stone doesn't. That's two whole types of creatures, there.

It doesn't work fabulously, it is still a pretty crappy spell. Flesh to Stone however does NOT work on those creatures. So it is one advantage that it has over flesh to stone (which I mentioned)...
Then again, you have other spells you can use on those suckers.

arguskos
2009-11-23, 08:31 PM
I've always seen Disintegrate as a decent thing to keep in your back pocket. Preparing one of them is always pretty good, since you can always figure out something to use it for. Whether blowing through walls, zapping golems, dusting the undead, or blasting the BBEG for a large fistful of d6s, Disintegrate's versatility always gets it done.

In the realm of pure Save-or-Die, Flesh to Stone is probably superior. In the realm of doing anything else, the Golden Oldie gets the marks.

Innis Cabal
2009-11-23, 08:32 PM
Disintigrate works (fabulously) on things without a Con score. Flesh to Stone doesn't. That's two whole types of creatures, there.

Gotta say. This is pretty important here. Like, way important...Flesh to Stone is good and all... but its not great. No better than the Bid D

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-23, 08:32 PM
Like Glass Strike. Fort-based Save or Lose that works against objects? Undead and Constructs have poor Fort saves and no ability bonus? Victory.

Ok, so Disintegrate sucks, much like direct damage in general sucks compared to Save or Dies (or battlefield control, or buffs). Your point? This didn't really need to be stated IMO.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 08:32 PM
Break Enchantment. Stone to Flesh. Polymorph Any Object.

What happens to a creature disintegrated? You have to true rez them back to a non-dust state.

Stone to Mud... if you really want to be thorough, purify water.


You can't loot a petrified creature, their gear turns to stone. Disintigrate leaves a pile of dusty clothing and weapons.

which requires that you do a little extra work after combat... stuff them in a portable hole, and when you come back home cut off the statue's head and then stone to flesh them to get their items. But you can do it at leisure since you actually won the combat.


Disintegrate is utilitarian, it can make holes anywhere, destroy a wall of force or a forcecage!

I think it's the only way out of the classic combo: Dimensional Lock + Forcecage.

I know, I listed that...

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-23, 08:34 PM
I know, I listed that...

Gnomo's point is that such an advantage is more important than you're suggesting (what with the scare quotes around advantages when describing Disintegrate), and that it should not be dismissed.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 08:36 PM
Like Glass Strike. Fort-based Save or Lose that works against objects? Undead and Constructs have poor Fort saves and no ability bonus? Victory.

Ok, so Disintegrate sucks, much like direct damage in general sucks compared to Save or Dies (or battlefield control, or buffs). Your point? This didn't really need to be stated IMO.

if it was so obvious that it didn't need to be stated, how come you are the first person to agree with me on the point?

As for undead: Undeath to Death (besides, a lot of undead DO have flesh)

As for constructs, oozes and plants: baleful polymorph into a puppy.


Gnomo's point is that such an advantage is more important than you're suggesting (what with the scare quotes around advantages when describing Disintegrate), and that it should not be dismissed.

Ah ok, I see the point...
question, is it the only way out of dimension lock + forececage?
Can't you dispel the dimension lock?

Kylarra
2009-11-23, 08:37 PM
You seem to be really set on this idea of being a trap, but given that it has significant out of combat utility whereas FtS is useful for exactly one thing... I mean the superiority of magic isn't just in destroying fights, it's in destroying plot obstacles.

sambo.
2009-11-23, 08:38 PM
huh?

Disintegrate is an awesome spell and has many, many more uses than the moribund dishing of damage.

with some creative thinking, it can be used to produce many, varied effects from battlefield control, through to save-or-be-badly-hurt.

some nasty is charging at you? disintegrate a section of floor right in front of them, or target their mount.

find yourself in a dimension-locked prison? blast a hole in the wall.

it's also a nice counter to a lot of other spells, Wall Of Force and Forcecage being the two most obvious, but there are many others.

another benefit of disintegrate is: it's a Transmutation spell, not an Evocation one. making it one of the few non-evocation spells that can deal out impressive damage.

Disintegrate does not "suck". the mage throwing disintegrate around might suck, but the spell itself is fine tyvm.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-23, 08:39 PM
The big problem is Fort Save vs a Ranged Touch Attack.

Fort Saves... everything has them. In spades. Unless you beef your DC's to minmax level, two thirds of the stuff in the MM is going to laugh at a Flesh to Stone. And the other third is immune to it.

RTA: Most things have a craptastic touch AC, and you can boost it further with True Strike, if necessary. True, it also has a Fort save for the fun damage output, BUT... it's not designed to attack those criters. It's designed to destroy the third of the MM which is immune to Flesh to Stone.

Furthermore, these encounters, mostly things with no Con score, have little else a Wizard has that can affect them. Disintegrate is a Wizard's primary answer to undead, and unless you have very specific spells memorized to target key weaknesses, about the only way a Wizard is going to affect a Golem.

So, worthless against two thirds of the MM and the last third is immune... or worthless against two thirds of the MM and devastating against the third.. hmm, I'll go with Option B.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 08:39 PM
You seem to be really set on this idea of being a trap, but given that it has significant out of combat utility whereas FtS is useful for exactly one thing... I mean the superiority of magic isn't just in destroying fights, it's in destroying plot obstacles.

I am not dead set on anything. I am saying that as a COMBAT spell it is sub par (not useless, but less useful than other spells of its level or even lower). There are better combat spells out there. But it does have useful out of combat utility.

Saph
2009-11-23, 08:42 PM
Reasons to use Disintegrate over Flesh to Stone:

1. Very many creatures are immune to petrification. Very few creatures are immune to being disintegrated.

2. Disintegrate leaves the target's equipment in a convenient pile. Flesh to Stone leaves the target's equipment petrified and requires spell expenditure and annoyance to retrieve it.

3. Flesh to Stone can be cured with 1 standard action (Stone to Flesh). Curing disintegration is much more of a hassle.

4. Flesh to Stone works on one creature. Disintegrate works on anything. Rocks, doors, walls, windows, unwanted presents, ugly pieces of public artwork, etc.

5. Disintegrate does damage on a successful save. Yes, it's only 5d6, but I've seen that make the difference between a character living and dying. Flesh to Stone does nothing on a successful save.


Disintegrate is a general-purpose spell - it trades power for flexibility. It's rarely going to be the perfect choice, but you can pretty much count on it always being usable, no matter what you're being attacked by. It's a great spell for a sorcerer, as it can be used in so many different ways.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 08:42 PM
The big problem is Fort Save vs a Ranged Touch Attack.
Don't you mean fort save AND a touch attack? Disintegrate requires a touch attack, a fort save, and an SR check.


Fort Saves... everything has them. In spades. Unless you beef your DC's to minmax level, two thirds of the stuff in the MM is going to laugh at a Flesh to Stone. And the other third is immune to it.
Disintegrate requires a fort save, hence they are also laughing at at disintegrate.


RTA: Most things have a craptastic touch AC, and you can boost it further with True Strike, if necessary. True, it also has a Fort save for the fun damage output, BUT... it's not designed to attack those criters. It's designed to destroy the third of the MM which is immune to Flesh to Stone.
You mean deal sub par damage to the third of the MM immune to flesh to stone...
Granted flesh to stone is not a perfect spell for killing things in combat. There are plenty of other spells though that do the same.

sofawall
2009-11-23, 08:43 PM
If you want to LOOT the statue then:
1. Flesh to stone
2. Break off its head
3. Stone to flesh ("injuries" sustained while in stone form remain)
Congrats, you not got all the loot.



Stone to Mud... if you really want to be thorough, purify water.

Those are both slightly more than just the one spell.

Saintheart
2009-11-23, 08:45 PM
The problem being with Flesh to Stone is that it only works on things with, well, flesh. Which therefore excludes many undead, incorporeals, phantasmal killers, and elementals. Disintegrate affects "any creature", on the spell description. And something that's flying directly above you is surely better turned into dust rather than a couple hundred pounds of rock with nothing but Newton left to work on it. :smallbiggrin:

arguskos
2009-11-23, 08:46 PM
As a fun note, I liked 2e, since you could reverse Flesh to Stone rather than having to prepare Stone to Flesh as well. /randomsemiontopicness

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-23, 08:46 PM
if it was so obvious that it didn't need to be stated, how come you are the first person to agree with me on the point?
The impression I got was that nobody was disagreeing, per se, just poking at the weaker parts of your argument. Reading back there are people that actually did disagree (even more after my post). My bad.


As for undead: Undeath to Death (besides, a lot of undead DO have flesh) Undead have good Will saves, so that's bad. It's also obscenely expensive. Flesh to Stone doesn't affect objects, so undead are immune regardless of how much flesh they have.


As for constructs, oozes and plants: baleful polymorph into a puppy. Constructs are immune, because baleful polymorph doesn't affect objects. Oozes and plants are immune to polymorph. And most oozes and plants don't have the mobility to be a threat - fly away from them and snipe to death.



question, is it the only way out of dimension lock + forececage?
Can't you dispel the dimension lock?
Yes, you can; and so that point was inaccurate.

Disintegrate is designed to be used against constructs and undead, who will most likely fail with their craptastic Fort saves. That's its combat niche - its other uses are out-of-combat. It's still bad at this because it has SR:Yes and a required ranged touch attack, but it's better at targeting them than Flesh to Stone is.

Kylarra
2009-11-23, 08:47 PM
I am not dead set on anything. I am saying that as a COMBAT spell it is sub par (not useless, but less useful than other spells of its level or even lower). There are better combat spells out there. But it does have useful out of combat utility.Uh...

Thread title: "Disintegrate sucks!"

Disintegrate is pretty famous, a very archetypical spell. And a total trap.


"Advantages" of Disintegrate:

Yay propaganda!

You spend the first post comparing it to FtS as a combat spell and belittle the advantages that disintegrate has in out of combat utility, not reducing your loot without the addition of a second spell, and significantly less restricted target range.

You then proceed to conclusively say that FtS is a better spell without actually weighing the two against each either, and use that conclusion to call disintegrate a trap. I call shenanigans.

Caldarin
2009-11-23, 08:50 PM
I think Saph just summed it up entirely...
plus, it's Varsuvius's favorite spell
and it sounds cooler- much more intimidating

sofawall
2009-11-23, 08:52 PM
if it was so obvious that it didn't need to be stated, how come you are the first person to agree with me on the point?

As for undead: Undeath to Death (besides, a lot of undead DO have flesh)

As for constructs, oozes and plants: baleful polymorph into a puppy.



Ah ok, I see the point...
question, is it the only way out of dimension lock + forececage?
Can't you dispel the dimension lock?

Hmm... It appears that Flesh to Stone and Undeath to Death and Baleful Polymorph are more powerful that Disintegrate? Is that even worth my time to respond to?

taltamir
2009-11-23, 08:53 PM
Reasons to use Disintegrate over Flesh to Stone:

1. Very many creatures are immune to petrification. Very few creatures are immune to being disintegrated.
Correct, I agree.


2. Disintegrate leaves the target's equipment in a convenient pile. Flesh to Stone leaves the target's equipment petrified and requires spell expenditure and annoyance to retrieve it.
Correct, but at least you won and are alive to go through that annoying process.


3. Flesh to Stone can be cured with 1 standard action (Stone to Flesh). Curing disintegration is much more of a hassle.
Assuming they actually prepared the exact spell needed to cure it. Stone to Flesh is a high level spell, people don't just walk around with it prepared, usually.


4. Flesh to Stone works on one creature. Disintegrate works on anything. Rocks, doors, walls, windows, unwanted presents, ugly pieces of public artwork, etc.
Yes it has great utility. But you can have other spells (like pass wall) that let you do all those neat things. Only thing that disintegrate can uniquely do is destroy force cages / walls. Definitely useful if you have some spare slots, but not the first choice in combat.


5. Disintegrate does damage on a successful save. Yes, it's only 5d6, but I've seen that make the difference between a character living and dying. Flesh to Stone does nothing on a successful save.
True, but you can also miss the touch attack, and considering your class, you have a fairly GOOD chance of missing the touch attack. I'd trade "automatically hits" for "does 5d6 damage on a successful save".


Disintegrate is a general-purpose spell - it trades power for flexibility. It's rarely going to be the perfect choice, but you can pretty much count on it always being usable, no matter what you're being attacked by. It's a great spell for a sorcerer, as it can be used in so many different ways.
Yes it does have flexibility. Although there are plenty of spells i'd cast before it.


Question: Does baleful polymorph work on golems?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-23, 08:55 PM
plus, it's Varsuvius's favorite spell

If only this forum had a laughing smiley so I could deride V more easily.


1) Baleful Polymorph is SR: Yes. Golems are immune to spells with SR: Yes.
2) Baleful Polymorph allows a Fortitude save, does not work on objects, and is not harmless. Constructs are immune to such spells.

sofawall
2009-11-23, 08:55 PM
Ok, Taltamir, seriously. Wtf.

Disintegrate sucks because other spells can do what it does? Not "Disintegrate sucks because Flesh to Stone can do everything it does" but "Disintegrate sucks because there happens to be a set of 6 or so spells that, together, almost replicate everything Disintegrate does?"

Saph
2009-11-23, 08:57 PM
Only thing that disintegrate can uniquely do is destroy force cages / walls.

It's not a unique spell; that's the point. It's a general-purpose spell that you prepare when you don't know exactly what you're going to be fighting, because it's usable in just about every situation. Flesh to Stone is much more specific; you prepare it when you know you're likely to be fighting a fairly strong creature with a weak Fort save that doesn't have enough equipment to be worth retrieving.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-23, 08:59 PM
You mean deal sub par damage to the third of the MM immune to flesh to stone... Subpar... last I heard, 40d6 (BEFORE metamagic, mind you, with sufficent metamagic twinkiness, you can get thousands of d6's involved) was hardly subpar. Also, all you need is for them to hit zero, and they are dust. It just needs to be the killing blow. So set them up with your Meatshield to hurt them badly, then use it for a finisher.

Granted flesh to stone is not a perfect spell for killing things in combat. There are plenty of other spells though that do the same.

The problem is that there are *NO* nitches that Flesh to Stone satisfies. The *ONLY* monsters which Flesh to Stone can affect have stupidly high Fort saves. Disintegrate can capitalize on weaknesses which certain monsters have about having poor fort saves, which happen to be immune to FtS. Thus, Disintegrate at least *HAS* a 'target audience'. FtS... doesn't.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 09:03 PM
Undead have good Will saves, so that's bad. It's also obscenely expensive. Flesh to Stone doesn't affect objects, so undead are immune regardless of how much flesh they have.

Are you sure they are immune to it?
Flesh to Stone
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue. If the statue resulting from this spell is broken or damaged, the subject (if ever returned to its original state) has similar damage or deformities. The creature is not dead, but it does not seem to be alive either when viewed with spells such as deathwatch.

Only creatures made of flesh are affected by this spell.

Material Component
Lime, water, and earth.

The only requirement I see is that they have flesh.


Constructs are immune, because baleful polymorph doesn't affect objects. Oozes and plants are immune to polymorph. And most oozes and plants don't have the mobility to be a threat - fly away from them and snipe to death.
So constructs are all immune to polymorph? I did not know that.
This does make a niche for disintegrate, it might require 3 saves, but at least it can hurt the damn things.


Disintegrate is designed to be used against constructs and undead, who will most likely fail with their craptastic Fort saves. That's its combat niche - its other uses are out-of-combat. It's still bad at this because it has SR:Yes and a required ranged touch attack, but it's better at targeting them than Flesh to Stone is.

Heh, yea you are right.
I should have used more sample spells in the title than just disintegrate and flesh to stone. Yes, obviously disintegrate works on things that flesh to stone doesn't. I even made note of it in my original post. But that doesn't mean that attacking those things with disintegrate then becomes the best thing you can do. There are still a whole portfolio of spells you can use.

sambo.
2009-11-23, 09:03 PM
plus, it's Varsuvius's favorite spell
i thought V's favourite spell was Exploding Runes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0317.html)....


Assuming they actually prepared the exact spell needed to cure it. Stone to Flesh is a high level spell, people don't just walk around with it prepared, usually.

Limited Wish?

taltamir
2009-11-23, 09:04 PM
If only this forum had a laughing smiley so I could deride V more easily.


1) Baleful Polymorph is SR: Yes. Golems are immune to spells with SR: Yes.
2) Baleful Polymorph allows a Fortitude save, does not work on objects, and is not harmless. Constructs are immune to such spells.

Disintegrate has SR: Yes
if golems are immune to SR: Yes
they are immune to disintegrate.

Boci
2009-11-23, 09:04 PM
The only requirement I see is that they have flesh.

Undead are immune to anything that requires a fort save unless it also affects an object.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 09:05 PM
Undead are immune to anything that requires a fort save unless it also affects an object.

ah, that makes a big difference.

Eldariel
2009-11-23, 09:07 PM
It's also the only way to damage some template stacks. See the Emerald Legion with the Ikea Tarrasques for example. They're immune to practically everything else, but you can tick them for 1d6 damage off Disintegrate until they die.

As for Golems, yeah, they're immune by default but some are affected in a way or another by Disintegrate as described in their description.

Milskidasith
2009-11-23, 09:07 PM
Disintegrate has SR: Yes
if golems are immune to SR: Yes
they are immune to disintegrate.

Actually, Disintegrate specifically does things to (some) golems: Slowing them and dealing minimal damage. Yeah, it's not useful. Still good against undead.

Logalmier
2009-11-23, 09:10 PM
Ok, Taltamir, seriously. Wtf.

Disintegrate sucks because other spells can do what it does? Not "Disintegrate sucks because Flesh to Stone can do everything it does" but "Disintegrate sucks because there happens to be a set of 6 or so spells that, together, almost replicate everything Disintegrate does?"

I agree. The argument, "The XXXX spell sucks because there's this other spell out there that's the same level, but better." is not a very good one. There are plenty of 6th level spells that are not as good as Flesh to Stone, but that doesn't mean that they suck. Disintegrate is an extremely useful spell, and there being better spells out there does not change that fact.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 09:11 PM
Subpar... last I heard, 40d6 (BEFORE metamagic, mind you, with sufficent metamagic twinkiness, you can get thousands of d6's involved) was hardly subpar
40d6 damage is indeed sub par to just "dead" or "lose"; which is what all SoL and SoD spells do. If it was "just damage" without a save it would have been a terrific spell.
Also, it is not 40d6 until you are level 20. At level 11 you are doing 22d6; if you hit, they fail their save, and you make the SR.


The problem is that there are *NO* nitches that Flesh to Stone satisfies. The *ONLY* monsters which Flesh to Stone can affect have stupidly high Fort saves. Disintegrate can capitalize on weaknesses which certain monsters have about having poor fort saves, which happen to be immune to FtS. Thus, Disintegrate at least *HAS* a 'target audience'. FtS... doesn't.
Enemy caster of any humanoid race. It has crap fort save, it is EXTREMELY deadly (can TPK you in a round), and it is succeptible to FtS.
And probably has a touch AC high enough that you have a 50% chance of missing. your ranged touch attack.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 09:13 PM
I agree. The argument, "The XXXX spell sucks because there's this other spell out there that's the same level, but better." is not a very good one. There are plenty of 6th level spells that are not as good as Flesh to Stone, but that doesn't mean that they suck. Disintegrate is an extremely useful spell, and there being better spells out there does not change that fact.

I have already admitted that I was wrong about some points.
I made some incorrect assumptions about disintegrate, but it is still a sub par spell, and not as useful in combat as many other spells.


It's also the only way to damage some template stacks. See the Emerald Legion with the Ikea Tarrasques for example. They're immune to practically everything else, but you can tick them for 1d6 damage off Disintegrate until they die.

As for Golems, yeah, they're immune by default but some are affected in a way or another by Disintegrate as described in their description.

and some creatures are ONLY damaged by magic missile, some only by shatter, some only by custom spell X...
this is not exactly an argument in favor of disintegrate. You just prepare the one and only thing that can hurt monster X when you face monster X.

Kantolin
2009-11-23, 09:17 PM
Honestly, I used to feel similarly.

But walls of force, resilient spheres, and other similar force effects can be painfully common at times - they're pretty popular 'stop that' effects. The more optimized your game gets, the more prevalent they can become too - making it even more useful to be able to get out of force. That mixed with the '2*leveld6' is usually plenty to solve whatever you're shooting it at.

The fact that if they make the save they get plinked instead of nothing is a pleasant additional side. 5d6 > 0d6.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-23, 09:18 PM
40d6 damage is sub par to just "lose" or "dead"; which is what all SoL and SoD spells do. If it was "just damage" without a save it would have been a terrific spell.
Also, it is not 40d6 until you are level 20. At level 11 you are doing 22d6. By level 11, you should be able to get a few CL boosters, so you're actually doing a bit more. However, against many things at that CR, 22d6 *IS* dead, so the point is irrelevant.



Enemy caster of any humanoid race. It has crap fort save, it is EXTREMELY deadly (can TPK you in a round), and it is succeptible to FtS.
And probably has a touch AC high enough that you have a 50% chance of missing. your ranged touch attack.

I fail to see how any opponent caster can have a touch AC over 40. Quickened True Strike = +20 to your attack. Flat. On top of your Dex mod, and your BAB. At 11th level, BAB = +5, and Dex mod of +4 is not unreasonable (I generally end up with a +6 by this point, but let's just say a +4). I've got a +29 on my attack roll. +30 if I'm a halfling.

Point is, it's stupidly easy to boost your attack roll. Much easier than trying to boost the DC's of your saving throws.

However, against an opponent caster, I'm not going to bother with FtS. I'll go with Enervation and nerf their casting to medicocre status for a 4th level spell (or, if I must have a 6th level spell, I'll go with Split Ray Enervation for 2d4+2 negative levels), or just hit them with a Feeblemind and laugh at their -4 to their saving throws on top of everything else.

Eldariel
2009-11-23, 09:19 PM
and some creatures are ONLY damaged by magic missile, some only by shatter, some only by custom spell X...
this is not exactly an argument in favor of disintegrate. You just prepare the one and only thing that can hurt monster X when you face monster X.

This isn't true. You can attain immunity to just about anything, but not to Disintegrate (other than, well, magic immunity). That's the whole point. It's untyped spell damage that doesn't come through attack, etc.

Magic Missile is Force-damage and is specifically blocked by Shield or Brooch of Shielding. Just about any energy type is easy to reach immunity to. And so on.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-23, 09:21 PM
I see opponent caster. I ready an action to "counterspell". Opponent caster begins casting and eats at least (level)d6 damage and likely fails the concentration check.

Slayn82
2009-11-23, 09:23 PM
Taltamir, if theres a bard around, song of liberation can be used to release someone petrified. Not so much use over someone desintegrated. Also, limited wishes can revert petrification, but are not as effective against desintegrate.

The only reason to choose flesh to stone is because your enemy may be using some spell to protect against desintegrate already , or if you need to capture the target safelly for some reason.

Edit: Or if you need to prevent someone of impending death by poison, disease or similar.

ericgrau
2009-11-23, 09:31 PM
The average CR 9 creature has about 130 HP and makes about half his saves. A CL 11 disintegrate averages 47 damage, whereas the 50% successful flesh to stone effectively averages 65 damage (kills 130 HP half of the time). The kicker is that the disintegrate stacks with your allies' damage, save or not, whereas the flesh to stone is either nothing or oops, your ally wasted his damage 'cuz of you. Which sucks if he did more than 18 damage.

Most importantly, flesh to stone turns the target's gear into stone, whereas disintegrate most explicitly leaves it intact and ready for looting.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 09:32 PM
@ Eldariel: Disintegrate is not untyped damage, it is force damage.


I fail to see how any opponent caster can have a touch AC over 40. Quickened True Strike = +20 to your attack. Flat. On top of your Dex mod, and your BAB. At 11th level, BAB = +5, and Dex mod of +4 is not unreasonable (I generally end up with a +6 by this point, but let's just say a +4). I've got a +29 on my attack roll. +30 if I'm a halfling.

The opponent caster will likely have an equal dex boost as you. So they cancel out.
At level 11 you have a +5 BAB, they have a 10 base touch AC.

So you need to roll a 5 or better to hit; not a very hard to hit, but still an additional "miss chance".
The problem is when the opponent caster is higher level then you and has better dex boosting or dodge.

A quickened true strike takes care of it, or even trying to attack a monster with a high dex. but that is another 5th level slot used, and using up your round's quickened action.

Yes, I have made this observation you can use true strike to nullify the cost.

@Foryn Gilnith: it is actually 2*level d6. But that is only if you hit AND they fail their save. A lot of other spells hit automatically and make them DEAD / As good as dead if they fail their save.
Disintegrate DOES have an advantage here though, and that is that if they MAKE their save they still take 5d6 damage. And that is likely to disrupt their spell... Actually a very cool use for the spell which I WILL be using.
Why disintegrate an enemy caster when you can ready action to disintegrate them when they cast their next spell... if you fail they still have a concentrate check to make. (assuming you can hit them in the first place that is)

Signmaker
2009-11-23, 09:33 PM
Disintegrate is most certainly not a force damage spell.

Kylarra
2009-11-23, 09:33 PM
@ Eldariel: Disintegrate is not untyped damage, it is force damage.
Schwa?


A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm

streakster
2009-11-23, 09:34 PM
@ Eldariel: Disintegrate is not untyped damage, it is force damage.



Wrong.
tencharacters

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-23, 09:35 PM
@ Eldariel: Disintegrate is not untyped damage, it is force damage.
Can you cite a source for that? I'm not seeing it in the PHB, and neither are the ninjas.

Also, I didn't mean to counterspell with Disintegrate. I'm counterspelling with something like Chain Lightning or Sonic Lance, which target poor reflex saves on those casters. They're better than Flesh to Stone and Disintegrate, because the former is all-or-nothing and the latter is a ranged touch attack (bleh).

Roderick_BR
2009-11-23, 09:41 PM
(...)
Disintegrate is designed to be used against constructs and undead, who will most likely fail with their craptastic Fort saves. That's its combat niche - its other uses are out-of-combat. It's still bad at this because it has SR:Yes and a required ranged touch attack, but it's better at targeting them than Flesh to Stone is.
And enemy arcane casters. What defenses a enemy wizard/sorcerer have against it, other than increasing miss chance or hiding behind a prismatic/force wall? It is high enough level to avoid most spell immunity effects, touch attack against an already armorless enemy, and a Fort save, that wizards and sorcerers are weak on, plus an high enough ammount of damage against their puny hit die. I don't think it counts as a death effect, so it can't be warded against.
Is there a way for arcane casters to protect themselves with?

Starbuck_II
2009-11-23, 09:44 PM
@ Eldariel: Disintegrate is not untyped damage, it is force damage.


You sure you aren't thinking of Explosive runes?

tonberrian
2009-11-23, 09:45 PM
And enemy arcane casters. What defenses a enemy wizard/sorcerer have against it, other than increasing miss chance or hiding behind a prismatic/force wall? It is high enough level to avoid most spell immunity effects, touch attack against an already armorless enemy, and a Fort save, that wizards and sorcerers are weak on, plus an high enough ammount of damage against their puny hit die. I don't think it counts as a death effect, so it can't be warded against.
Is there a way for arcane casters to protect themselves with?

Ray Deflection (Spell Compendium). Total immunity to anything using a ranged touch attack. It's even level 4, so it's available before Disintigrate.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 09:45 PM
Can you cite a source for that? I'm not seeing it in the PHB, and neither are the ninjas.

Interesting. I distrinctly remember seeing somewhere that said it was source (and thinking "so it is not untyped after all"), but I cannot find that source right now, I am looking for it though.


Is there a way for arcane casters to protect themselves with?

If you go by PHB only, then:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spellresistance.htm

Volkov
2009-11-23, 09:46 PM
That spell can turn an BBEG's fortress into dust with a few shots. Easily. That is all that needs to be said.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-23, 09:48 PM
Is there a way for arcane casters to protect themselves with?
Besides the very common miss chances you already mentioned?

@tonberrian: Not all ranged touch attacks are rays. Ray is in the effect line, but using abilities such as the Hierophant's Divine Reach you can derive a ranged touch attack from the range line.

Signmaker
2009-11-23, 09:49 PM
Besides the very common miss chances you already mentioned?

@tonberrian: Not all ranged touch attacks are rays. Ray is in the effect line, but using abilities such as the Hierophant's Divine Reach you can derive a ranged touch attack from the range line.

Friendly Fire is another, more versatile option.

So now we've gone from "Disintegrate sucks" to "Wellllllllllll, all of these ways beat disintegrate". So yes, it's a versatile, though decently protected against spell.

Is that all, folks?

waterpenguin43
2009-11-23, 09:49 PM
Are you sure they are immune to it?
Flesh to Stone
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue. If the statue resulting from this spell is broken or damaged, the subject (if ever returned to its original state) has similar damage or deformities. The creature is not dead, but it does not seem to be alive either when viewed with spells such as deathwatch.

Only creatures made of flesh are affected by this spell.

Material Component
Lime, water, and earth.
The only requirement I see is that they have flesh.
So constructs are all immune to polymorph? I did not know that.
This does make a niche for disintegrate, it might require 3 saves, but at least it can hurt the damn things.


The point is, disintigrate is useful for the fact that it holds versatility as a weapon. You sound like my friend: Oh, psions are SO much better than wizards because they can augment things. Oh Sorcerers are way better than wizards because wizards have to prepare spells and sorcerers get more.
As for you:
Oh, flesh to stone is SO much better than disintigrate because it doesn't need a touch attack and is an instant kill.
You seem to both sorely underestimate versatility.

tonberrian
2009-11-23, 09:50 PM
Besides the very common miss chances you already mentioned?

@tonberrian: Not all ranged touch attacks are rays. Ray is in the effect line, but using abilities such as the Hierophant's Divine Reach you can derive a ranged touch attack from the range line.

:smallsigh:

Which is why I read directly from the spell text, not the spell name.

Volkov
2009-11-23, 09:53 PM
Do you know why Beholders are scarier than Medusa's? Yes the anti-magic cone is dangerous. But it's mainly because it has a DISINTEGRATE ray, and a Flesh to Stone Ray. Which means he can turn you to stone, and destroy your remains. Or he could use finger of death. Or he could charm you, and ask you to stand still, then zap you with a ray.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-23, 09:54 PM
Depends on how you read it. Many people will read that as ranged-touch-attack-immunity, yes. But a DM of mine saw that there was no direct provision for what "protected against ranged touch attacks" entailed, and I didn't have much luck arguing against him.

I mostly just wanted an excuse to define rays. :P

taltamir
2009-11-23, 09:56 PM
If you look at the original post, it was "disintegrate sucks: that is, it sucks in combat, because despite its versatility there are many spells which do what it does better".

It is however, more versatile than I first though...

As for destroying the BBEG's fortress, tons of lower level spells can do that.

erikun
2009-11-23, 09:58 PM
Disintegrate
Effect: Ray

Also, if the spell text reads, "Total immunity to anything using a ranged touch attack," I don't see how there can be much argument. As for your other request...

Ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manta_ray) n. - Any of various marine fishes of the order Rajiformes or Batoidei, having cartilaginous skeletons, horizontally flattened bodies, and narrow tails.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 09:59 PM
Disintegrate
Effect: Ray

Also, if the spell text reads, "Total immunity to anything using a ranged touch attack," I don't see how there can be much argument. As for your other request...

Ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manta_ray) n. - Any of various marine fishes of the order Rajiformes or Batoidei, having cartilaginous skeletons, horizontally flattened bodies, and narrow tails.

ack, ninjad.

btw... how about "extract water elemental"?
CL * d6 damage, fort halves. if killed you get a water elemental. And there is no ranged touch attack.


PPS. I forgot to mention it before...
quickened true strike means you are not cating quickened spell volnerability (-8 on SR)

Volkov
2009-11-23, 10:01 PM
If you look at the original post, it was "disintegrate sucks: that is, it sucks in combat, because despite its versatility there are many spells which do what it does better".

It is however, more versatile than I first though...

As for destroying the BBEG's fortress, tons of lower level spells can do that.

They aren't quite as hilarious as watching the BBEG sitting in his throne as his fortress turns to dust, huge chunk after huge chunk, until he notices his throne, and thus himself is floating many hundreds of feet in mid-air, and then watching as he falls to his death in true loony toons fashion.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-23, 10:01 PM
For the duration of the spell, you are protected against ranged touch attacks, including ray spells and ray attacks made by creatures. Any ray attack directed at you is automatically reflected harmlessly away.

The spell says that you are protected against ranged touch attacks, including rays. However, it does not elaborate on that this protection entails, except for rays. While one could extrapolate immunity to ranged touch attacks, one could also assume that the reference to ranged touch attacks was extraneous. Many do the former; my DM chose the latter.

tonberrian
2009-11-23, 10:03 PM
Disintegrate
Effect: Ray

Also, if the spell text reads, "Total immunity to anything using a ranged touch attack," I don't see how there can be much argument. As for your other request...

Ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manta_ray) n. - Any of various marine fishes of the order Rajiformes or Batoidei, having cartilaginous skeletons, horizontally flattened bodies, and narrow tails.

Well, it says "...you are protected against ranged touch attacks, including ray spells and ray attacks made by creatures. Any ray attack directed at you is automatically reflected harmlessly away." There is certainly room for interpretation there, but for this case it's pedantic - Disintigrate would be blocked regardless of what interpretation you used.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-23, 10:04 PM
If you look at the original post, it was "disintegrate sucks: that is, it sucks in combat, because despite its versatility there are many spells which do what it does better".

It is however, more versatile than I first though...

As for destroying the BBEG's fortress, tons of lower level spells can do that.

So, force damage, eh?

taltamir
2009-11-23, 10:05 PM
Disintegrate
Effect: Ray


For the duration of the spell, you are protected against ranged touch attacks, including ray spells and ray attacks made by creatures. Any ray attack directed at you is automatically reflected harmlessly away.

I don't see how this is an argument. The spell explicitly states that ray attacks do not hit you, period. And disintegrate is a ray.

Now I can see your DM houseruling that the spell does not work that way, but the RAW is very very clear.


So, force damage, eh?

I am looking. I was sure it said it. Anyways, that was an aside, doesn't really affect anything argued thus far.

waterpenguin43
2009-11-23, 10:05 PM
ack, ninjad.

btw... how about "extract water elemental"?
CL * d6 damage, fort halves. if killed you get a water elemental. And there is no ranged touch attack.


I know, isn't it beautiful?:smallbiggrin:

Kylarra
2009-11-23, 10:10 PM
ack, ninjad.

btw... how about "extract water elemental"?
CL * d6 damage, fort halves. if killed you get a water elemental. And there is no ranged touch attack.
If we want to be pedantic,

Close range, no out of combat utility.

This shouldn't really be a game of "what spells can I come up with that can fulfill one of disintegrate's uses?", because it's already been granted that while disintegrate might not be the most optimal spell for a specific job, it's certainly nearly always useful in some way or another.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-23, 10:10 PM
Disintigrate would be blocked regardless of what interpretation you used.

I was talking about ranged touch attacks in general and not about Disintegrate specifically.

Also, I really do think Reflex half spells are better to target casters, because while casters need high Con for HP and Concentration, they need Dex less.

erikun
2009-11-23, 10:13 PM
btw... how about "extract water elemental"?
CL * d6 damage, fort halves. if killed you get a water elemental. And there is no ranged touch attack.
I <3 my elemental mages. Do you recall which book has this spell?


I am looking. I was sure it said it. Anyways, that was an aside, doesn't really affect anything argued thus far.
Was it 3.0 D&D, by chance? 3.0 did have some really odd things, so perhaps a force-damage Disintegrate is one of them.

Psionic Disintegrate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/disintegratePsionic.htm) is not force damage either, in case you're wondering.

Kylarra
2009-11-23, 10:14 PM
I <3 my elemental mages. Do you recall which book has this spell?
It's in SpC, I don't know where it came from originally.

DaDude9211
2009-11-23, 10:27 PM
Correct, but at least you won and are alive to go through that annoying process.

That's assuming they fail their save. Let me explain what horrible thinking you must have put into that sentence...

Disintegrate and Flesh to Stone are equal level spells, target Fort, and are both Transmutation, for general purposes it's fair to say their DC will be the same if cast by the same caster.

If the enemy makes their save:

Flesh to Stone fails immediately.
Disintegrate checks SR, then does 5d6 damage - a commendable compensation.

End result: 0d6 vs. a chance of 5d6. If Disintegrate fails Flesh to Stone fails. In any event of you relying on Disintegrate and it failing, resulting in your death, Flesh to Stone would not have saved you. Unless, by terrible odds, you didn't beat the attacker's Touch AC. Which, if you didn't, is pretty sad for you, and you should probably be playing Planar Shepard so that you don't die and have to make a new character every other gaming session as a result of your poor character construction abilities.

If the enemy fails their save: Both spells check for SR, then

Flesh to Stone turns the enemy into stone... pretty standard SoL spell.
Disintegrate does 2xCLd6 damage - Twice the normal for a 'throw a bag of d6s at them' spell. It also kills if they hit 0. No -10 required.

End result: Death vs. Pretty much Death.

If we're using this to target enemy casters, as you suggest is the prime target, we're looking at HD of 11d4 vs 22d6. Something tells me that caster's Con mod or possible DR isn't going to let him survive getting more than twice his HD in damage thrown at him. Even if the enemy caster got full HP for his dice, and had a Con of 16-17, that would still kill him with average damage.

Notably, however, Flesh to Stone does not require an attack roll. Are there situations where Flesh to Stone is a better combat spell? Of course. Targets with high-HP but a low Fort save despite this are great for Flesh to Stone.

Notable after-combat differences
Disintegrate doesn't require the expenditure of a 6th level spell to retrieve loot.
Flesh to Stone can keep someone KOd but unressurectable.
Disintegrate is a Ray, and can thus benefit from things that effect rays.
Disintegrate affects pretty much everything, where as Flesh to Stone only affects fleshy things.
Flesh to Stone can admittedly make some pretty awesome statues/tombstones.

That being said, it's really more of a Sorcerer's spell. You know, not everyone has the time to dilly around in a spell book writing in spells like Stone to Flesh, Move Earth, Dispel and the like - So instead, you take one spell and do all three effects with it (kind of). Sorcerers have to have 10 solutions to 100 different problems, that's just how they roll. Will it be as effective per spell cast? No, but that's why they get more spell per day.

TL;DR: Disintegrate is a good spell. Wizards that prepare it and run around casting it for damage each turn are not good.

FYI Flesh to Ice is pretty much the same except for what I'm going to assume you can guess from the title of the spell; and it's only 5th level instead. So uh... Yeah.

aje8
2009-11-23, 10:35 PM
I'd actually agree with Flesh to Stone>Disintergrate. Flesh to Stone with kill anything at any level. Distinegrate increases by 2d6 per level. There are ways to avoid Disintegrate other than passing the save. Not nearly as many for Flesh to Stone. Oh and because HP damage that doesn't just kill them is fairly irrelevant at 13th level, the 5d6 or so while nice, isn't super relevant. Also.... how cares about an average of 18 damage at that level?

But anyway, even if that fight is close, it doesn't matter. You should never prepare either (from a purley optimization stadnpoint) if you have Frostburn because Flesh to Ice is 1 level lower and thus much better than both.

Asbestos
2009-11-23, 10:56 PM
The thing about all the "X Spell can do Y function of Disintegrate better/equal to Disintegrate therefor Disintegrate is no good in the role of performing Y function" arguments is that... well, we can't all be Schroedinger Wizards. Why memorize a bunch of spells that I might not even end up using when I can just put Disintegrate into my head and be pretty much 100% sure that I'm going to be able to use it in some fashion? Better to spend one spell slot than six.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 11:08 PM
The thing about all the "X Spell can do Y function of Disintegrate better/equal to Disintegrate therefor Disintegrate is no good in the role of performing Y function" arguments is that... well, we can't all be Schroedinger Wizards. Why memorize a bunch of spells that I might not even end up using when I can just put Disintegrate into my head and be pretty much 100% sure that I'm going to be able to use it in some fashion? Better to spend one spell slot than six.

yes, that is an excellent argument. Although you are still not 100% sure you are going to be able to use it, you are just much more likely to be able to use it than some more specialized spells.

Asbestos
2009-11-23, 11:09 PM
yes, that is an excellent argument. Although you are still not 100% sure you are going to be able to use it, you are just much more likely to be able to use it than some more specialized spells.

If all else fails I can make me a foxhole at the end of the day :smallwink: No Disintegrate is to go unused.

AslanCross
2009-11-23, 11:11 PM
Wasn't Disintegrate formerly a Save or Die? (At least it was in Baldur's Gate II). I was very happy to see that it actually dealt damage in 3.x.

The multiple defenses that Disintegrate calls for aren't so bad in my opinion. If the creature makes its fort save against Flesh to Stone, the spell is gone. Touch AC attack rolls are very difficult to fail and even when the creature makes its save, the spell isn't completely wasted.

Metamagic can still increase the damage the spell deals on a failed save.

Leon
2009-11-23, 11:25 PM
There are a lot of bad spells available , Disintegrate isn't one of them.

I don't typically play Wizards, i prefer Sorcerers and like to have spells that that can be used for utility in addition to combat. While not every decent spell has non combat options its good to have some that do.

Only Non combat option i see for FtS is opening up a garden statue store.


Disintegrate Vs that ray deflection spell = target the ground under the protected creature

taltamir
2009-11-23, 11:29 PM
There are a lot of bad spells available , Disintegrate isn't one of them.

I don't typically play Wizards, i prefer Sorcerers and like to have spells that that can be used for utility in addition to combat. While not every decent spell has non combat options its good to have some that do.

Only Non combat option i see for FtS is opening up a garden statue store.

FtS was just a random example of comparison spell, many others have been given in this thread. all better than FtS and disintegrate.



Disintegrate Vs that ray deflection spell = target the ground under the protected creature

It is an emeny spell caster with ray delfection... it has overland flight.

Leon
2009-11-23, 11:41 PM
It is an emeny spell caster with ray delfection... it has overland flight.

Do they all come with that as standard?

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-23, 11:43 PM
Do they all come with that as standard?

For Overland Flight or Phantom Mount? Pretty much. Ray Deflection? Depends on what sourcebooks are allowed.

Signmaker
2009-11-23, 11:44 PM
Note: For you to know to aim at the square rather than the caster would be to know they have Ray Deflection, and therefore is a moot argument.

sofawall
2009-11-23, 11:48 PM
I am looking. I was sure it said it. Anyways, that was an aside, doesn't really affect anything argued thus far.

I'm pretty sure it strongly effects the second largest argument against your thesis i.e. versatility against targets of choice in combat.

The strongest argument against your thesis is "Who cares? Why are you using it in combat anyway?"

Darrin
2009-11-23, 11:56 PM
Disintegrate doesn't require the expenditure of a 6th level spell to retrieve loot.


Minor nitpick: Break Enchantment is a 5th level spell, or 4th if you're a bard.

Jack Mann
2009-11-24, 12:00 AM
I'll agree that disintegrate is a fairly niche spell in combat. It checks three different defenses, so the only time you're likely to use it is when you're going up against enemies likely to fail all three (mostly undead and some constructs). It does very well against these targets, but against most other enemies, it has a fairly high chance of failure.

However, as has been stated before, it has a great deal of out-of-combat utility, and even some battlefield control elements. Used creatively, it's a very powerful spell. If you think of it primarily as an attack spell, then yes, it's very specialized, and most of the time not going to be all that great. However, if you think of it as a utility spell that can be used to attack in a pinch, it rises in usefulness.

Leon
2009-11-24, 12:08 AM
While the majority of the board hold it in disdain, I'd say that a fair proportion of the rest of the population who play the game find that Blasting magic is a perfectly acceptable use for magic and Thus Disintegrate with its high damage potential sits favorably with them.

How can you go past a Untyped damage spell with a high damage potential (once you mix meta-magic in it will increase much more)

As i mentioned before having utility options makes for a good spell.
Enervation while being a good spell has no utility value, its sole trick is to debilitate a foe (possibly unto its death)
But you cant Enervate a door open (Living Doors not included)

For a Wizard there maybe better options than it but for a Sorcerer you want to get as much out of your limited selections as possible, FtS makes for a good scroll spell - just to have if the situation warrents it.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 12:11 AM
Do they all come with that as standard?

yes... a spell caster without flight makes as much sense as a druid without natural spell. Or a fighter without armor / weapon proficiency.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 12:23 AM
Disintegrate advantages:

1) Highly effective against creatures with no Con (lower Fort save).
2) Amount of damage it causes on a failed save is absolutely stupid. Average of 140 at CL 20. 240 if you can get it maximized via rod. Average of 310 if you Max+empower it.
3) It's a Ray. It qualifies for splitting, chaining, and other ray shenanigans.
4) It's utilitarian. It puts big holes most anywhere.
5) It's effectively a skeleton key for many spells that are otherwise rather powerful barriers.
6) Damage is untyped. Very difficult to resist or prevent.

Disintegrate Disadvantages:

1) Targets Fort save. This means that it's not good against things with High Con, or high Fort saves.
2) Allows SR, Requires a ranged touch attack, AND allows a save. That's potentially 3 ways to dodge the proverbial silver bullet.


As can be seen, it's situational. You won't have a lot of success against high HP, high Con targets. However, it can be very useful for terrain shaping, as a defense against enemy terrain shaping, and against any target with a lower than average fort save, and less than stellar HP.

In other words, use it against the Vampire, the Lich, and the Wizard. Not the Hill Giant Frenzied Berserker. Against him? Destroy the cavern supports, or create a pit to interrupt his charging path, or hit him with a Will SoL.

sofawall
2009-11-24, 12:25 AM
yes... a spell caster without flight makes as much sense as a druid without natural spell. Or a fighter without armor / weapon proficiency.

Well, you actually need to go out of your way to have a fighter w/o Weapon/Armour Profs.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 12:45 AM
Well, you actually need to go out of your way to have a fighter w/o Weapon/Armour Profs.

true, but the penalty the fighter take for not having weapon proficiency is just a -4 to attack. Which is not as bad as a druid without natural spell or a caster without flight.

sofawall
2009-11-24, 12:49 AM
True as this may be, it remains a horrible analogy. I know people who play casters that do fly. I know people who play Druids that do not take Natural Spell. I have yet to find someone who took the time, money and effort to remove all his weapon and armour proficiencies.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 12:51 AM
True as this may be, it remains a horrible analogy. I know people who play casters that do fly. I know people who play Druids that do not take Natural Spell. I have yet to find someone who took the time, money and effort to remove all his weapon and armour proficiencies.

wait... you know people who play a druid without natural spell... really?

Fax Celestis
2009-11-24, 12:59 AM
wait... you know people who play a druid without natural spell... really?

I am one of them.

sofawall
2009-11-24, 01:00 AM
wait... you know people who play a druid without natural spell... really?

My sister.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 01:01 AM
wait... you know people who play a druid without natural spell... really?

Anyone who plays a "shifter" variant.

Tavar
2009-11-24, 01:01 AM
Or any of the variant that remove wildshape.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 01:03 AM
Or any of the variant that remove wildshape.

that doesn't count. I was obviously referring to shapeshifter druids. I actually SPECIFIED as such in earlier posts but did not feel the need to repeat it over and over again.

Gralamin
2009-11-24, 01:04 AM
Only someone feeling like breaking the game would use natural spell. Seriously.

streakster
2009-11-24, 01:09 AM
wait... you know people who play a druid without natural spell... really?

*Raises hand*

Seriously, the few times I play a druid, I already have too much power on hand. No reason to be silly about it.

I like that one at-will variant better anyway. I hate per-day abilities.

Grumman
2009-11-24, 01:09 AM
wait... you know people who play a druid without natural spell... really?
I didn't. IMO, it should really be a Metamagic feat that takes up a spell slot 1 level higher, sort of like a combined partial Still spell, partial Silent spell.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 01:10 AM
Only someone feeling like breaking the game would use natural spell. Seriously.

Nah, you can do it without breaking the game with restraint. Don't thumb 33 sourcebooks for animals to shift into.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-11-24, 01:17 AM
Nah, you can do it without breaking the game with restraint. Don't thumb 33 sourcebooks for animals to shift into.

This, this argument right here? Wrong. First of all, you only need one MM to get the most broken form of all (It starts with F.... and ends with leshraker), but even in core, you are incredibly powerful.

A Druid A. fights as well as a Fighter B. has a Companion that Fights as well as a fighter and C. casts 9th level spells.

You don't need to use the stupidly broken forms to get absurd effects out of that. And unlike Cleric (which has some trickiness in knowing the proper buffs) and Wizard, which is a whole nother can of worms, Druids pretty much get all this for free.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-11-24, 01:20 AM
Just curious, what can FtS do that a Baleful Polymorph doesn't do at a lower (and IMO sparser in core for direct combat) spell level?

Kylarra
2009-11-24, 01:26 AM
True as this may be, it remains a horrible analogy. I know people who play casters that do fly. I know people who play Druids that do not take Natural Spell. I have yet to find someone who took the time, money and effort to remove all his weapon and armour proficiencies.
Chaos shuffle? >_> :smalltongue:

taltamir
2009-11-24, 01:29 AM
Just curious, what can FtS do that a Baleful Polymorph doesn't do at a lower (and IMO sparser in core for direct combat) spell level?

I mentioned that in a later post; I forgot that baleful polymorph was a fort save so I didn't mention it in the first post but I added it in later...
and people have mentioned several other spells that are superior to both FtS and Disintegrate at lower levels...

So yes, both spells mention in the original post are... overshadowed.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 01:38 AM
This, this argument right here? Wrong. First of all, you only need one MM to get the most broken form of all (It starts with F.... and ends with leshraker), but even in core, you are incredibly powerful.

A Druid A. fights as well as a Fighter B. has a Companion that Fights as well as a fighter and C. casts 9th level spells.

You don't need to use the stupidly broken forms to get absurd effects out of that. And unlike Cleric (which has some trickiness in knowing the proper buffs) and Wizard, which is a whole nother can of worms, Druids pretty much get all this for free.

Fleshraker is the most broken!? That makes about as much sense as saying that Enervate is the best spell ever. It's good, but really.

Dire Tortoise crushes it, hands down. As do several other forms.

A druid fights as well as a fighter a couple levels lower, has a companion that's about the same, and casts 9th level. Not arguing that it's not strong. But it's no more broken than you allow it to be. You can choose natural spell without being an evil demonic munchkin who dreams only of crushing games and taking candy bars from infants.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 01:41 AM
Fleshraker is the most broken!? That makes about as much sense as saying that Enervate is the best spell ever. It's good, but really.

Dire Tortoise crushes it, hands down. As do several other forms.

A druid fights as well as a fighter a couple levels lower, has a companion that's about the same, and casts 9th level. Not arguing that it's not strong. But it's no more broken than you allow it to be. You can choose natural spell without being an evil demonic munchkin who dreams only of crushing games and taking candy bars from infants.

you can choose natural spell and not use it in normal day to day combat... but be able to, say, cast that cure spell on an allay at -9 who would not survive if you waste your turn changing back into a human.

sofawall
2009-11-24, 01:42 AM
Chaos shuffle? >_> :smalltongue:

But of course.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 01:44 AM
you can choose natural spell and not use it in normal day to day combat... but be able to, say, cast that cure spell on an ally at -9 who would not survive if you waste your turn changing back into a human.

Exactly. It's not munchkinnign to have a reserve of strength that you don't pull out unless it really gets bad.

lesser_minion
2009-11-24, 07:03 AM
I <3 my elemental mages. Do you recall which book has this spell?


Was it 3.0 D&D, by chance? 3.0 did have some really odd things, so perhaps a force-damage Disintegrate is one of them.

Psionic Disintegrate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/disintegratePsionic.htm) is not force damage either, in case you're wondering.

3.0 disintegrate was a simple save or die with 5d6 damage on a save.


It was actually nerfed to dealing damage because the 3.0 version was basically Flesh to Stone on crack, with the ability to affect anything, and a nastier effect, with more versatility just to rub it in, and mitigated solely by the RTA (hey look, it's quickened True Strike). Oh, and not affecting the tarrasque.

Shield provided a +7 to AC against rays in 3.0, so without True Strike the RTA would potentially have been a serious issue.


On the Natural Spell thing, I'm in the same boat - I would never touch it. I favour lightly optimised play though.

Leon
2009-11-24, 07:39 AM
wait... you know people who play a druid without natural spell... really?

I don't use it.
Druids are one of my favorite classes yet i don't see a need for it.

I dislike Wildshape, its a extra that comes with the class i like so i remove it where possible.


3.0 disintegrate was a simple save or die with 5d6 damage on a save.


I had a feeling it was like that but i couldn't find my book to confirm

Volkov
2009-11-24, 08:06 AM
Meh. I'll stick with my druids who never leave dinosaur form.

Oslecamo
2009-11-24, 09:20 AM
Meh. I'll stick with my druids who never leave dinosaur form.

And this is why natural spell is broken. It allows the druid to stand shaped all day long, wich also allows him to buff himself with animal buffs, and get gear specific for his animal form, and completely crap on str and dex.

Killer Angel
2009-11-24, 09:34 AM
And this is why natural spell is broken. It allows the druid to stand shaped all day long, wich also allows him to buff himself with animal buffs, and get gear specific for his animal form, and completely crap on str and dex.

One of my DM strongly disagree that a druid with NS is stronger than a fighter, and he didn't even think that they're on par in melee. Because, you know, Core is balanced and so no one is stronger than the fighter in melee.

One of these days I'll show him the light... :smallbiggrin:

PS: Disintegrate is a good spell. Definitely not a "be all end all", but useful, 'specially for Sorcerers

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-24, 09:40 AM
While the majority of the board hold it in disdain, I'd say that a fair proportion of the rest of the population who play the game find that Blasting magic is a perfectly acceptable use for magic and Thus Disintegrate with its high damage potential sits favorably with them.
Chain Lightning and company are better for a blasting wizard because they have multiple targets and have litle practical miss chance.

Leon
2009-11-24, 11:22 AM
Chain Lightning and company are better for a blasting wizard because they have multiple targets and have litle practical miss chance.

So?

I didn't say it was the end all of Blasty spells, just it sits favorably and with the Utility option to help

While CL is nice too it doesn't match Disintegrate for Single target removal potential, but covers the Selective AoE slot

ericgrau
2009-11-24, 11:23 AM
Preparing a flesh to stone, passwall, level 6 stone to flesh (break enchantment doesn't work on 6th level spells nor instantaneous spells btw) and a shatter is just plain dumb. It's a waste of spell slots that you may or may not ever use whether you're a wizard or a sorcerer. And then you're still screwed against undead and constructs. Don't tell me undead aren't extremely common. Better to just fess up and admit that flesh to stone is less versatile rather than digging yourself deeper into more poor choices. And then there are the half dozen spells specifically destroyed only by a disintegrate.

And that's the thing. Even when flesh to stone is stronger than disintegrate it's only marginally better, and getting your loot takes another 6th level spell. I'm surprised anyone would even consider it. Flesh to stone doesn't even compare to disintegrate.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-24, 11:25 AM
So?

Nothing; I was just making a comment. X is better than Y, but that doesn't imply Y is bad.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-24, 11:48 AM
wait... you know people who play a druid without natural spell... really?

I've seen non flying casters, but I've never seen this. Ever. Invariably, someone reccomends it, even for new players, because its so widely known as good.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 02:57 PM
And this is why natural spell is broken. It allows the druid to stand shaped all day long, wich also allows him to buff himself with animal buffs, and get gear specific for his animal form, and completely crap on str and dex.

Wild Shape is based off Alternate Form (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm).

You don't get the type of the new form. You cannot use animal buffs. You are still eligible for buffs for your original race.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-24, 03:22 PM
Wild Shape is based off Alternate Form (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm).

You don't get the type of the new form. You cannot use animal buffs. You are still eligible for buffs for your original race.

Only in a recent errata. He may not have gotten the memo.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-24, 07:27 PM
Is there a way for arcane casters to protect themselves with?If I were ever to play a wizard, I'd have my raven familiar on standby to call out a command-word.

The object (pun!) of the command-word? My shrink item'd hat. It's actually about 4000 pounds of solid darkwood.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 07:41 PM
If I were ever to play a wizard, I'd have my raven familiar on standby to call out a command-word.

The object (pun!) of the command-word? My shrink item'd hat. It's actually about 4000 pounds of solid darkwood.

would that kill you?

Oslecamo
2009-11-24, 08:07 PM
Only in a recent errata. He may not have gotten the memo.

No I didn't, thanks for pointing that out. But even then NS is still broken.

I did receive a memo saying that errata made gate only bring a creature with HD equal to your CL, and caped at 20, but few other people seem to have received it, and it doesn't seem to be updated on the srd either.

A litle more on topic, disintregate is probably one of the best spells around whitout being on the broken side like polymorph, celerity and time stop.

It works against a lot of stuff, is one of the few ways of destroying certain effects and it's also an instant kill that doesn't destroy loot. What is there to don't like?

ken-do-nim
2009-11-24, 08:09 PM
Disintegrate is a general-purpose spell - it trades power for flexibility. It's rarely going to be the perfect choice, but you can pretty much count on it always being usable, no matter what you're being attacked by. It's a great spell for a sorcerer, as it can be used in so many different ways.

I know, when I played a sorcerer I really wanted to take it but I couldn't fit it in. So many good ones at level 6 and you only get 3. (In case you are curious, I took greater heroism, greater dispel magic, and imbue familiar with spell ability; plus analyze dweomer via the extra spell feat).

shadow_archmagi
2009-11-24, 08:40 PM
It has been pointed out earlier in the thread that Flesh to Stone doesn't work on non-living creatures.

THERE GOES MY FORTUNE IN THE MEAT STORAGE INDUSTRY

Woodsman
2009-11-24, 08:42 PM
It has been pointed out earlier in the thread that Flesh to Stone doesn't work on non-living creatures.

THERE GOES MY FORTUNE IN THE MEAT STORAGE INDUSTRY

You can take rocks and turn them into chunks of flesh with Stone to Flesh, though.

erikun
2009-11-24, 09:02 PM
Bigby's Vegetarian Meatburgers?

Akal Saris
2009-11-24, 09:21 PM
You can take rocks and turn them into chunks of flesh with Stone to Flesh, though.

I remember an old yamara comic where the main villain had the spell 'Flesh to Plush', and at one point considered using it to find her keys in the carpet :P

On another note, I was playing Icewind Dale II yesterday, which IIRC used a slightly different version of disintegrate - you fail, you die, you succeed, you take 5d6 - while flesh to stone did nothing on a failed save. So Disintegrate was better in every way =P

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-24, 11:08 PM
would that kill you?Not really, no. The hat is in the shape of a hollowed-out dome or a cone which is more than large enough to hold me inside, and it expands instantaneously, meaning I'm inside it before I've even realized that it's expanded.

And when shrunk it weighs only 1 lb, which certainly won't do much to crush me unless I'm an awakened lightning bug.

John Campbell
2009-11-25, 03:06 PM
yes... a spell caster without flight makes as much sense as a druid without natural spell. Or a fighter without armor / weapon proficiency.

None of those are comparable. Fighters get armor and weapon proficiencies automatically. I've never seen a 3.5 game in which Natural Spell was not banned. Flight is very useful, but not automatic, and seldom banned.

And the ability to destroy force cages alone makes disintegrate an indispensable spell.

Akal Saris
2009-11-25, 03:25 PM
Not really, no. The hat is in the shape of a hollowed-out dome or a cone which is more than large enough to hold me inside, and it expands instantaneously, meaning I'm inside it before I've even realized that it's expanded.

And when shrunk it weighs only 1 lb, which certainly won't do much to crush me unless I'm an awakened lightning bug.

Possibly the only useful thing to ever come out of a fighter vs. wizard thread.

Talya
2009-11-25, 03:45 PM
Disintegrate is utilitarian, it can make holes anywhere, destroy a wall of force or a forcecage!

I think it's the only way out of the classic combo: Dimensional Lock + Forcecage.

Ruby Ray of Reversal can do the same thing and has some neat other utility uses, although precious few offensive ones.

Johel
2009-11-25, 03:49 PM
You can take rocks and turn them into chunks of flesh with Stone to Flesh, though.

Or you could just cast PaO on rats and transform them permanently into horses.
Same Kingdom, same Class, same Intelligence. Much more food/utility.
The peasants will LOVE you !!

And to stay on topic, you can then just use them for target practice with Disintegrate, which IS better than Flesh to Stone, if only because it always has some effect. Not THE best choice in every situation but a good "swiss knife" with at least 22d6 damage.
Only real flaw is the touch attack but, unless you are targeting individual locust or something, a touch attack shouldn't be a problem for 11th level Wizard.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-25, 03:51 PM
None of those are comparable. Fighters get armor and weapon proficiencies automatically. I've never seen a 3.5 game in which Natural Spell was not banned. Flight is very useful, but not automatic, and seldom banned.

And the ability to destroy force cages alone makes disintegrate an indispensable spell.

Right, Flight isn't automatic until you get Overland Flight. Fly could possibly run out before you're done killing stuff.

At mid-high levels though, you will be flying essentially all day.

taltamir
2009-11-25, 04:16 PM
None of those are comparable. Fighters get armor and weapon proficiencies automatically. I've never seen a 3.5 game in which Natural Spell was not banned. Flight is very useful, but not automatic, and seldom banned.

And the ability to destroy force cages alone makes disintegrate an indispensable spell.

an indispensable UTILITY spell. My actual (original) argument was that it sucks at killing things.

Although, I since saw that while it is less efficient at killing things, it is able to affect a significantly larger amount of creatures than the average SoD/SoL