PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Overlooked Spells



Fax Celestis
2010-06-12, 08:28 PM
Related to this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155517), what are some spells that you feel are oft passed over but don't deserve to be?

I am a particular fan of cloud of knives and legion of sentinels. Both have some very amazing uses (particularly legion of sentinels coupled with a bull-rushing dungeoncrasher fighter), but they are frequently passed over for other, more well-known spells.

PersonMan
2010-06-12, 08:30 PM
Flaming Sphere is mostly unused by the people I know. Heck, even I didn't use it until just recently. I mean, it only does 2d6(Reflex for 0) damage...But then you realize that in a long fight you can cast it and use a spell+deal and extra 2d6 damage. I also used it to map out a maze and set off several traps that would have gotten us.

NelKor
2010-06-12, 08:31 PM
Alot of the people in my group overlook Alter's Fortune and Unluck
Find them both to be pretty solid spells, even if Alter's has a 200 exp cost, that one reroll might just be required.

EvilJoe15
2010-06-12, 08:36 PM
Regal Procession(SpC) Why sell one horse when you can sell dozens?
Fireburst, and Greater Fireburst(SpC) Very good blasts for their level.
1d8 / 1d10 per level.

PId6
2010-06-12, 08:44 PM
Bigby's Grasping Hand - The best of the "Bigby's Hand" family (well, at least of the combat ones; can't really compete with the more "private-use" ones), it is fairly versatile (grapple, bull rush, or provide cover) and has an obscene grapple check (CL + Int/Cha + 14 tends to get big). Rarely used mostly because it's evocation and everyone dumps it, but I like it on my sorcerers.

Eldariel
2010-06-12, 08:49 PM
This is really hard since my considerations are colored mostly by my own perception and as I'm not aware of others' awareness on a grand number of spells, it's really hard to call what's overrated (would Battlemagic Perception qualify? Anticipate Teleport? Bands of Steel? Defenestrating Sphere? Benign Transposition? All incredible spells not mentioned all that often, but ones I'd assume to be common knowledge anyways). Anyways, here's one I think gets passed over quite often:

Combust [SpC]: One of the better seeds spells for metamagic; 1d8/lvl (up to 10d8) damage from a 2nd level slot with no save or attack roll (though SR).

Gadora
2010-06-12, 11:03 PM
Flaming Sphere is mostly unused by the people I know. Heck, even I didn't use it until just recently. I mean, it only does 2d6(Reflex for 0) damage...But then you realize that in a long fight you can cast it and use a spell+deal and extra 2d6 damage. I also used it to map out a maze and set off several traps that would have gotten us.

Try plopping Fell Drain on it.

Edit: Huh, I was thinking of Produce Flame (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/produceFlame.htm). Fell Drain still would be rather fun to put on Flaming Sphere, though. Produce Flame has a wizardly counterpart in Snilloc's Snowball, from Unapproachable East. Both are decent spells for a low level character.

arguskos
2010-06-12, 11:17 PM
Try plopping Fell Drain on it.
LOLERYINCOMING. :smallbiggrin:

No, really, that's a good one.

One spell I dearly love but no one else seems to even know exists is Toothed Tentacle, from Lost Empires of Faerun. Sor/Wiz 2, gives you three 10-ft tentacles you can attack with on your turn at like BAB+casting mod and that deal reasonably good damage. Oh, and you can still move around on your turn while directing them. It's good times.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-12, 11:22 PM
Howling Chain and Flight of the Dragon, like many evocation spells, sometimes get overlooked.

arguskos
2010-06-12, 11:31 PM
Howling Chain and Flight of the Dragon, like many evocation spells, sometimes get overlooked.
What is Flight of the Dragon, and where's it from? I love me some Howling Chain, but don't know the other one.

Oh, the altered Black Tentacle spells from Shining South (Fiery Tentacles and Enervating Tentacles or something like that) are fun too. One does fire damage+being black tentacles, the other drains levels+black tentacles. Always good times.

Flickerdart
2010-06-12, 11:36 PM
Bladeweave from SpC. Swift action to activate this 2nd level spell, and stuff you hit (and then hit again with a free touch attack) are dazed for a round. War Cry (I think also SpC, there are at least two War Cries though) is similar, but 4th level, panics instead, and you don't need a second attack.

Keld Denar
2010-06-12, 11:41 PM
Radiant Assault, another decent Evocation from SpC. Its a [Light] spell, so its unresistable. Oh, and it has a will save, which means Evasion can get bent. Mettle still works, but you can't have everything. Oh, and in case I forgot to mention it...the will save ALSO DAZES YOU FOR 1d6 ROUNDS!!!!

It also appears on the cleric list. Funny thing is when you have 2 levels of RSoP, you get a free +1 Heighten and a Widen Spell effect applied. Who knew being a healbot was so satisfying?

Glimbur
2010-06-12, 11:43 PM
Helping Hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/helpingHand.htm). You might question the utility of a spell that sends a ghostly hand to guide people to you. Besides the obvious uses, it's hilarious to use on people who are hiding. There's no way to avoid the hand detecting you besides not giving the caster a good description (it's Evocation, not Divination, which amusingly helps here), and the spellcaster can also see the hand. Therefore, the caster knows enough to start dropping AoE's, or directing the wizard to throw Glitterdust.

Marriclay
2010-06-12, 11:44 PM
The shivering touch spells were unknown among my circle of friends until I took a red dragon's dexterity down to 0 and then coup-de-graced it. I think he'll be throwing white dragons at us instead from now on.

Riffington
2010-06-12, 11:44 PM
[B](well, at least of the combat ones; can't really compete with the more "private-use" ones)

Are these in BOEF?

PId6
2010-06-12, 11:50 PM
Oh, right, mustn't forget this ungodly broken spell I found in Spellbook (which obviously inspired Bladeweave):

Bladesong (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20010126a) (Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2) - Once per round, if you hit an enemy with your weapon, you can make a touch attack against them as a free action. If the touch succeeds, they're dazed for 1 round, no save (Will negates applies to the weapon). Can you say dazelock? At high levels when touch-attacks are pretty much auto-hit, this lets you steal the turn of anyone with nearly 95% success, and daze works on nearly everything. It's also easily Quickened or Persisted if you allow Persist on Touch spells or use Reach Spell. So broken for a 2nd level spell.


Are these in BOEF?
If not, they should be.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-12, 11:54 PM
What is Flight of the Dragon, and where's it from? I love me some Howling Chain, but don't know the other one.

Oh, the altered Black Tentacle spells from Shining South (Fiery Tentacles and Enervating Tentacles or something like that) are fun too. One does fire damage+being black tentacles, the other drains levels+black tentacles. Always good times.Wow, how did I turn Lord of the Sky into... That's not just a typo...

arguskos
2010-06-13, 12:16 AM
Wow, how did I turn Lord of the Sky into... That's not just a typo...
Technically, the question stands. :smalltongue: Don't recognize Lord of the Sky either.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-13, 12:38 AM
Flight of the Dragon is a transmutation spell from Draconomicon. It's basically draconic Red Bull. :smallwink:

EDIT: Lord of the Sky is from Dragon Magic. It gives magical flight and lightning bolts.

Protecar
2010-06-13, 01:11 AM
This might not be a great spell(or maybe it's really well known, but I don't hear it mentioned), but the description is solid and the ability seems nice: Phantasmal Assailants(SC). It gets two saves(will for nothing, fort half), but if they fail both, let 'em eat 8 dex AND 8 wis damage. I was trying to sling this around with a sudden empower the other day. Soooo much stat damage! :smallbiggrin:

bobspldbckwrds
2010-06-13, 01:19 AM
prestidigitation! :smallbiggrin:

need a torch lit? BINGO!

breaking in and need to clean up the glass? BINGO?

not wanting the gruel you are eating to taste like gruel? BINGO!

want to make the barbarian's centaur steak dinner to taste like pineapple? BINGO!

want to gather up the coins that the crowd threw to the bard while he was singing? BINGO!

easily the best cantrip, and a solid spell for RP any day.

balistafreak
2010-06-13, 01:32 AM
I'm pretty sure NO ONE overlooks Prestidigitation.

Except those with no brains. Wait a minute, that's a pretty common trait.

Starscream
2010-06-13, 02:10 AM
I have two favorites. None are earth-shatteringly awesome, but fun and handy. Both are in the Spell Compendium.

Manyjaws. 3rd level Sor/Wiz. Up to ten sets of jaws made of force appear, and attack who you wish for 1d6 each, Ref half. Can be maintained for up to 3 rounds.

I think this one tends to be ignored simply for the reason that direct damage spells are not considered optimal. Which is true, but I think every wizard should have at least one, and this isn't a bad choice. The jaws can affect incorporeal enemies, the damage is untyped, they automatically hit with the save only halving the damage, the fact that it can be maintained means that you can chew away quite a bit of damage over time which makes this a nice choice if you are low on spell slots, and unlike a fireball or lightning bolt there is no danger of blasting your melee-fighting party members. At the very least I'd rather carry around a wand of this than the more traditional fireball.

Entice Gift. 2nd level Sor/Wiz, Bard. The subject must succeed on a will save or give you whatever he is holding. You can act out of turn to take it.

This one is just plain fun. Against many enemies it's a nice, low level Save or Lose. Even some quite powerful monsters are wimps if they give up their weapons. Make the guard hand over the keys to your cell, a bard give up his instrument, a cleric his holy symbol (though in that case he may not actually need to be holding it). Maybe even get the BBEG to offer you the plot MacGuffin (though then you might need to make a Ref save against a hurled DMG). It's not a supremely useful spell, but such a fun way to end (or avoid) a fight.

Thespianus
2010-06-13, 02:17 AM
Combust [SpC]: One of the better seeds spells for metamagic; 1d8/lvl (up to 10d8) damage from a 2nd level slot with no save or attack roll (though SR).
Well, it's a Touch Attack to deliver the spell, right?

Marriclay
2010-06-13, 02:18 AM
Well, it's a Touch Attack to deliver the spell, right?

I believe so. Spectral hand makes it even better, sorta-sniping enemies

PId6
2010-06-13, 02:20 AM
Well, it's a Touch Attack to deliver the spell, right?
Yes, which is actually a plus at high levels/epic since it gets around Ray Deflection.

Thespianus
2010-06-13, 02:22 AM
Bladeweave from SpC. Swift action to activate this 2nd level spell, and stuff you hit (and then hit again with a free touch attack) are dazed for a round..

Where do you get the second attack from? Maybe I'm not reading the spell right, but it says that you select one target that you've hit with a melee attack during the round, and that target has to make a will save or be dazed.

Sweet spell, but you don't seem to need the second touch attack.

Thespianus
2010-06-13, 02:24 AM
Yes, which is actually a plus at high levels/epic since it gets around Ray Deflection.

And the touch attack makes it work sweetly with Sneak Attacks! :)

Hunter's Eye and Combust makes for a great "Hello and welcome to the first round of combat"-gift when you win initiative. :smallsmile:

PId6
2010-06-13, 02:28 AM
Where do you get the second attack from? Maybe I'm not reading the spell right, but it says that you select one target that you've hit with a melee attack during the round, and that target has to make a will save or be dazed.

Sweet spell, but you don't seem to need the second touch attack.
It's Bladesong that needs the second touch attack, which I've talked about above. It's Bladeweave's massively more broken uncle.

Thespianus
2010-06-13, 02:46 AM
One Cleric spell that I've read about but never seen used is Turn Anathema from CC (I believe).

Basically it allows you to turn Good/Evil/Chaotic/Lawful (depending on your alignment) beings as if they were undead. Given that moste higher level undeads have turn resistance, but VERY few other monsters than Undead have turn resistance, it seems to be crazy good in some situations (being attacked by a bunch of Fiendish creatures, or hordes of Dretches, etc)

Am I reading the spell wrong, or is it this (situationally) awesome?

Our Party has used Knight's Move (SpC) to great success when faced with an opponent in a tight dungeon. Our Cleric teleports to a flanking position, allowing the Rogue to take a full attack with sneak attacks on his initiative count.

Ashram
2010-06-13, 02:52 AM
The shivering touch spells were unknown among my circle of friends until I took a red dragon's dexterity down to 0 and then coup-de-graced it. I think he'll be throwing white dragons at us instead from now on.

And that, my dear friend, is where Energy Substitution comes into play. :smallbiggrin:

When I was playing a cleric who partied with a ranged rogue, one of our favorite spells was Curse of Arrow Attraction from PHB2. Sadly it's a Will save, but the -5 AC against ranged attacks and the ability to auto-confirm critical hits is pretty nice.

DwarvenExodus
2010-06-13, 02:54 AM
Manyjaws. 3rd level Sor/Wiz. Up to ten sets of jaws made of force appear, and attack who you wish for 1d6 each, Ref half. Can be maintained for up to 3 rounds.


Where is this from?

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-13, 02:54 AM
One Cleric spell that I've read about but never seen used is Turn Anathema from CC (I believe).

Basically it allows you to turn Good/Evil/Chaotic/Lawful (depending on your alignment) beings as if they were undead. Given that moste higher level undeads have turn resistance, but VERY few other monsters than Undead have turn resistance, it seems to be crazy good in some situations (being attacked by a bunch of Fiendish creatures, or hordes of Dretches, etc)

Am I reading the spell wrong, or is it this (situationally) awesome?A lot of spells are situationally awesome. That said, this spell on a cleric somewhat dedicated to turn undead could make a nasty trip through the lower planes a relative cake walk.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-13, 02:55 AM
And that, my dear friend, is where Energy Substitution comes into play. :smallbiggrin:Reach Maximized Energy Sub (Fire) Searing Shivering Touch. BURN that dex away.

Ashram
2010-06-13, 02:56 AM
Where is this from?

Player's Guide to Faerun.


Reach Maximized Energy Sub (Fire) Searing Shivering Touch. BURN that dex away.

My personal favorite was Maximized Empowered Energy-Admixtured Twin Combust.

Hendel
2010-06-13, 03:29 AM
Flight of the Dragon is a transmutation spell from Draconomicon. It's basically draconic Red Bull. :smallwink:

EDIT: Lord of the Sky is from Dragon Magic. It gives magical flight and lightning bolts.

It is also in the Spell Compendium with some changes, so if you are like me and use the latest published version of the spell that would be it.

The only differences are it went from 5th to 4th level and the duration went from hour per level to ten minutes per level.

Quirp
2010-06-13, 03:49 AM
One of my favorite spells from the PHB is Sunburst (I hope nobody tells me that there is an errata somwhere). Pathetic damage (against undead it is all right), save or blind and a 80 ft radius. Pitty that it is an 8th level spell.

AslanCross
2010-06-13, 06:01 AM
Reach Maximized Energy Sub (Fire) Searing Shivering Touch. BURN that dex away.

It still doesn't change the spell's explicit wording that it doesn't work on creatures of the Cold subtype. The spell doesn't even deal any energy damage. You can Energy Sub it, but it won't do anything. It doesn't deal "Cold Dex Damage." There is no such thing. It simply deals Dex damage.

My opinion of the spell is as such:

1. It's badly worded to begin with and should not be allowed without the DM rewriting it from scratch.

2. It's not a surefire way of killing dragons, especially if the DM actually flies the dragon around. Even with Fly and Haste, a wizard just can't catch up with 150 ft. fly speed.

3. There are more fun ways to kill a dragon than that, frankly.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-13, 06:51 AM
2. It's not a surefire way of killing dragons, especially if the DM actually flies the dragon around. Even with Fly and Haste, a wizard just can't catch up with 150 ft. fly speed.

This isn't much of a defense, since if the dragon stays 150 ft. away from the party at all times it can't really do anything against the party, either, unless it has long range spells. Whereas the wizard can ready an action to cast Reach Shivering Touch as soon as the dragon comes into range.


3. There are more fun ways to kill a dragon than that, frankly.

This I'll definitely agree with.

Aeromyre
2010-06-13, 06:54 AM
Flaming Sphere is mostly unused by the people I know. Heck, even I didn't use it until just recently. I mean, it only does 2d6(Reflex for 0) damage...But then you realize that in a long fight you can cast it and use a spell+deal and extra 2d6 damage. I also used it to map out a maze and set off several traps that would have gotten us.

Thats my favorite spell ever!
it actually can help you find invisible creatures too if you're in a smallish room fighting one.

Zanticor
2010-06-13, 11:48 AM
Almost all the bard only spells are often overlooked. What about Love's lament that makes your enemies cry about their long lost love (or their abusive mother) and Sirine's grace which buffs your ac to the extreme, lets you fight in the water and gives +10 on any perform check!
But then again bard are often overlooked all together.:smallfrown:

Zanticor

Person_Man
2010-06-13, 01:06 PM
Improvisation (Bard 1, Spell Compendium). It gives you a scaled floating Luck bonus pool that can be used for pretty much anything. The duration is pretty limited, but it can be ridiculously useful.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-13, 01:15 PM
I am a particular fan of cloud of knives and legion of sentinels. Both have some very amazing uses (particularly legion of sentinels coupled with a bull-rushing dungeoncrasher fighter), but they are frequently passed over for other, more well-known spells.

Don't forget Bigby's Slapping Hand. Set up a Legion of Sentinels beforehand, then do crazy amounts of damage with a single 1st-level spell.

true_shinken
2010-06-13, 02:18 PM
I really like Seeking Ray. 4d6 electricity and +4 on your next ray attacks; excellent way to set up more powerful rays while still doing some damage.
One of my players is really fond of Arcane Bolt.
Lightning Leap is very cool when sculpted as well.
I have a thing for Flame Blades too. If only there was an electrical version...

Greenish
2010-06-13, 02:38 PM
I can see all kinds of fun to be had with Statue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/statue.htm).

Unless someone has implanted false memories to my head, Fafhrd and Grey Mouser were both masquerading as statues when they first met.

Optimystik
2010-06-13, 02:58 PM
Player's Guide to Faerun.

The latest version of Manyjaws is actually in Spell Compendium, though I'm unaware if anything was changed.


prestidigitation! :smallbiggrin:
need a torch lit? BINGO!
breaking in and need to clean up the glass? BINGO?
not wanting the gruel you are eating to taste like gruel? BINGO!
want to make the barbarian's centaur steak dinner to taste like pineapple? BINGO!
want to gather up the coins that the crowd threw to the bard while he was singing? BINGO!
easily the best cantrip, and a solid spell for RP any day.

Are we allowing psionic powers as well?
Secrets of Sarlona converts many spells to powers, including Prestidigitation.
(To make up for it not being a cantrip anymore, they roll the effects of Mending (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mending.htm) into the power as well.)

peacenlove
2010-06-13, 04:06 PM
Binding Chain of fate (9th level spell from waterdeep): Area spell, Basically Surrounds the adjacent squares of the target with antimagic field, dimensional anchor, and those inside cannot move by any means and can't change form. And it deals some damage per round on top of it.

Kelben's dweomerdoom (9th level spell from waterdeep): Swift action, counterspell the next spell or spell like ability the target tries to cast, instantaneous duration so it cannot be dispelled and it will surely counterspell a spell.

Vizzerdrix
2010-06-13, 04:10 PM
I feel that cantrips and orisons are too often overlooked.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-13, 04:25 PM
It still doesn't change the spell's explicit wording that it doesn't work on creatures of the Cold subtype. The spell doesn't even deal any energy damage. You can Energy Sub it, but it won't do anything. It doesn't deal "Cold Dex Damage." There is no such thing. It simply deals Dex damage.It has the [Cold] descriptor, meaning its damage is of the cold type. This is why it doesn't affect creatures of the Cold subtype. If you change the descriptor (via energy substitution), you change the type of damage, and therefore you change the types of creatures that are immune to said damage. I suppose one could argue that the text of the spell that states "creatures of the cold subtype are immune to the effects of shivering touch" has nothing to do with the damage being cold, but that's just bending RAW to fix a spell you can just ban.


2. It's not a surefire way of killing dragons, especially if the DM actually flies the dragon around. Even with Fly and Haste, a wizard just can't catch up with 150 ft. fly speed.So you're saying the dragon can... run away? Why not mention Scintillating Scales instead?


3. There are more fun ways to kill a dragon than that, frankly.Could you tell me what else is fun and not fun so I can straighten my life out? To be honest I wouldn't use Shivering Touch in all but the highest optimization games, but I wouldn't go so far as saying one-shotting a dragon using a cheesy spell just isn't fun, period.

Wonton
2010-06-15, 02:03 AM
I really like Seeking Ray. 4d6 electricity and +4 on your next ray attacks; excellent way to set up more powerful rays while still doing some damage.

I love that one! Glad to see I'm not the only who noticed this spell. :smallbiggrin:
I like this spell so much, I had to really think hard before banning Evocation for my Conjurer.

Some more of my favourites...

Disobedience (CS) - 3rd level hours-long duration buff that completely negates all mind control and charms. I like it.
Ruin Delver's Fortune (SpC) - 4th level, Immediate action, choose from a bunch of protective effects based off your Charisma. Every Sorcerer of 8th level or higher that I play will always have this.
Body Blaze (Sandstorm) - 3rd level, lights you on FIRE and makes a Wall of Fire effect in your footsteps. Come on, this spell is just badass. :smallwink:
Melf's Unicorn Arrow (PHB II) - Probably not quite unknown, but nothing like firing multiple rays that damage and bull rush. Lots of fun to use.
Arcane Turmoil (CM) - Targeted dispel magic as a 2nd level spell (and let's be honest, when's the last time you used area dispel or counterspell?). Also can rid the target of a spell slot!! (though a spellcaster failing a Will save is unlikely)

And now to the most overlooked spell in the game, which, turns out, was in the PHB all along:

Sympathetic Vibration (PHB) - 2d10/round to a building? No saving throw? As a SIXTH-LEVEL BARD SPELL? :smalleek:
This is downright broken, don't take this unless you want to ruin your DM's campaign. :smallannoyed:

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-15, 02:11 AM
Sympathetic Vibration (PHB) - 2d10/round to a building? No saving throw? As a SIXTH-LEVEL BARD SPELL? :smalleek:
This is downright broken, don't take this unless you want to ruin your DM's campaign. :smallannoyed:I want to hear that story. I think it gets overlooked because by the time the Bard is casting his 6th level spells the wizard has been breaking the game with 8th level spells (also, the 10 minute casting time doesn't do it any favors).

Coidzor
2010-06-15, 02:53 AM
Hmm... So is that just like the walls, windows, floors, ceilings, and roofing? Hmm... It's either dealing 2d10 to every part of the building at once or 2d10 to component sections per round. As... buildings don't have HP except for like, wall sections, I think, unless it means to total up the hp of all sections...:smallconfused:

Definitely a good way to take out a Hoover Dam type of operation, I guess, if you've got the time and exit strategy to avoid being crushed by falling masonry. Though, as someone else mentioned, full casters will have 8ths available.

I am a bit amused by the tuning fork focus though. Reminds me of that scrying spell where you have to actually make a magic television as the focus, only in this case it's slightly more amusing as it's a bard hitting a tuning fork and trying to get his voice to go beyond shattering glass and into shattering well, wood, stone, adamantium.

Wonton
2010-06-15, 12:12 PM
P.S. I was joking about Sympathetic Vibration. Sarcasm can be difficult to translate over the internet. It's certainly a cool spell (you're using PHYSICS to destroy the object!), but even in its niche (which is sabotage-type missions), I can't see it being the best way to destroy something.

PId6
2010-06-15, 12:17 PM
Ruin Delver's Fortune (SpC) - 4th level, Immediate action, choose from a bunch of protective effects based off your Charisma. Every Sorcerer of 8th level or higher that I play will always have this.
My problem with Ruin Delver's Fortune is that it's almost completely overshadowed by Wings of Cover. They're both great for Sorcerers, but very rarely would RDF be useful when WoC is not, and WoC is two spell levels lower.

Saph
2010-06-15, 12:23 PM
My problem with Ruin Delver's Fortune is that it's almost completely overshadowed by Wings of Cover. They're both great for Sorcerers, but very rarely would RDF be useful when WoC is not, and WoC is two spell levels lower.

Two words: area attacks. Wings of Cover does just about nothing against AoE effects like Fear, Confusion, or breath weapons. Ruin Delver's Fortune can easily get your save up to the point where you're getting a 95% success rate, and unlike Wings of Cover it lasts 1d4 rounds, meaning that if you get targeted with multiple attacks in one round it keeps protecting you.

PId6
2010-06-15, 01:01 PM
Two words: area attacks. Wings of Cover does just about nothing against AoE effects like Fear, Confusion, or breath weapons. Ruin Delver's Fortune can easily get your save up to the point where you're getting a 95% success rate, and unlike Wings of Cover it lasts 1d4 rounds, meaning that if you get targeted with multiple attacks in one round it keeps protecting you.
Fear and Confusion are Burst (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#area) spells, which means "It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners)." Wings of Cover gives you total cover.

Breath weapons would work because they're spread-shaped (I assume; it doesn't actually say that I can find), but you still gain +4 Reflex against them.

Fax Celestis
2010-06-15, 01:08 PM
P.S. I was joking about Sympathetic Vibration. Sarcasm can be difficult to translate over the internet. It's certainly a cool spell (you're using PHYSICS to destroy the object!), but even in its niche (which is sabotage-type missions), I can't see it being the best way to destroy something.

It has the [Sonic] descriptor. Therefore, the damage it deals is inflicted directly to the structure, rather than being halved or quartered and then having hardness applied.

Take a 1' thick wall of stone, for instance. Hardness 8, 15 HP per inch of thickness (so 15*12=180 HP). An un-metamagicked fireball is going to deal 10d6 fire (average 35). 35/2=17.5 (because fire is halved), 17-8 hardness=9. 9 damage from a fireball.

Meanwhile, sympathetic vibration bypasses that, dealing 2d10 sonic (average 11) per round, for at minimum sixteen rounds. 16*11=176 damage.

One spell has essentially reduced a foot-thick wall of stone to rubble--one far thicker than one created by the wall of stone spell, mind you: at equal CL, the wall of stone spell is going to be 4" thick, so it'll only have 60 HP. Further, sympathetic vibration damages the whole structure, instead of damaging just a 5' section.

Saph
2010-06-15, 01:16 PM
Fear and Confusion are Burst (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#area) spells, which means "It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners)." Wings of Cover gives you total cover.

Breath weapons would work because they're spread-shaped (I assume; it doesn't actually say that I can find), but you still gain +4 Reflex against them.

Wings of Cover isn't quite as good as that. It explicitly says your opponent can attack the area you're in with an area attack, in which case you're still affected but you get a bonus to AC or Reflex saves. If the attack uses a Fort or Will save, though . . . well, then Wings doesn't do much.

Wonton
2010-06-15, 01:19 PM
Wings of Cover isn't quite as good as that. It explicitly says your opponent can attack the area you're in with an area attack, in which case you're still affected but you get a bonus to AC or Reflex saves. If the attack uses a Fort or Will save, though . . . well, then Wings doesn't do much.

Exactly.
"Wings of Cover solves everything huh? How about this Stinking Cloud? :smallamused:"


It has the [Sonic] descriptor. Therefore, the damage it deals is inflicted directly to the structure, rather than being halved or quartered and then having hardness applied.

Take a 1' thick wall of stone, for instance. Hardness 8, 15 HP per inch of thickness (so 15*12=180 HP). An un-metamagicked fireball is going to deal 10d6 fire (average 35). 35/2=17.5 (because fire is halved), 17-8 hardness=9. 9 damage from a fireball.

With all due respect, anyone using Fireball against a stone wall is dumb as **** and deserve to fail. :smallannoyed:

Fax Celestis
2010-06-15, 01:20 PM
Do you have a better spell for breaking a wall down with magic? A whole wall at the same time, at that.

PId6
2010-06-15, 01:22 PM
Wings of Cover isn't quite as good as that. It explicitly says your opponent can attack the area you're in with an area attack, in which case you're still affected but you get a bonus to AC or Reflex saves. If the attack uses a Fort or Will save, though . . . well, then Wings doesn't do much.
It says it provides total cover, which would block effects like Fear by RAW. Your opponents can still use area effects like Fireball on you due to the fact that it's a spread, so there is no contradiction. As written, Wings of Cover blocks anything that requires line of effect.

Wonton
2010-06-15, 01:23 PM
Do you have a better spell for breaking a wall down with magic? A whole wall at the same time, at that.

Let's start with Sound Lance.

Adamantine Greatsword (Major Creationed if necessary) + Summon something/Turn into something with very high Strength.

Saph
2010-06-15, 01:26 PM
It says it provides total cover, which would block effects like Fear by RAW. Your opponents can still use area effects like Fireball on you due to the fact that it's a spread, so there is no contradiction. As written, Wings of Cover blocks anything that requires line of effect.

Wings of Cover says:

"Your foe could choose to attack the area in which you have taken cover with an area attack (such as a fireball spell). In this case, you gain a +8 bonus to AC (if applicable) and a +4 bonus on Reflex saves."

Area attacks include bursts, emanations, and spreads.

Fax Celestis
2010-06-15, 01:30 PM
Let's start with Sound Lance.

...which only hits a 5' section at a time. Sympathetic vibration takes down the whole structure.

Jokasti
2010-06-15, 01:30 PM
Prestidigitation. Woefully underutilized. So many uses no one uses.

Greenish
2010-06-15, 01:34 PM
It has the [Sonic] descriptor. Therefore, the damage it deals is inflicted directly to the structure, rather than being halved or quartered and then having hardness applied.Sonic damage is reduced by hardness, so it should be:

Take a 1' thick wall of stone, for instance. Hardness 8, 15 HP per inch of thickness (so 15*12=180 HP). An un-metamagicked fireball is going to deal 10d6 fire (average 35). 35/2=17.5 (because fire is halved), 17-8 hardness=9. 9 damage from a fireball.

Meanwhile, sympathetic vibration bypasses that, dealing 2d10 sonic (average 11-8 for hardness, so 3) per round, for at minimum sixteen rounds. 16*3=48 damage.48 damage in minute and a half. Should've brought that adamantine dagger.

[Edit]: Specific trumps general, and the spell description says hardness doesn't apply.

2xMachina
2010-06-15, 01:35 PM
...which only hits a 5' section at a time. Sympathetic vibration takes down the whole structure.

I Sympathetic vibration the Planet!

Keld Denar
2010-06-15, 01:35 PM
I've preached the virtues of Turn Anathema in the past. The part about it that is particularly gruesome is that nearly ALL outsiders tend to have lowish HD for their CR, unlike undead. Most outsiders have 1 HD per CR, with a CR10 Vrock having 10 HD, and a CR20 Balor having 20 HD. Meanwhile, a CR5 zombie can have ~20 HD, and a CR10 zombie closer to 40. That means that most of the time, a like-leveled cleric can turn a demon, when he has no chance of turning a similarly difficult to defeat undead. With a little gear, an 11th level cleric could concievably turn a Balor or Pit Fiend.

Unfortunately, you can't apply Greater Turning to outsiders (explicitly forbidden in the spell text), so you can't dust a Balor. Also, since nearly all of the outsiders worth turning have Greater Teleport as an at-will SLA (which they ARE allowed to use to escape), turned outsiders seldom stay away for more than 10 rounds, and often return with buffs and/or friends.


I'm a HUGE fan of Benign Transposition. I like it even better than Baleful Transposition because it doesn't have the same connection clause, making it utilitarianly useful for moving party members past obsticles like cliffs or pits or even across ships. A Gish with Quicken Spell, or some way to simulate Quicken (rod, Circlet of Rapid Casting), can use it in conjuntion with his familiar as a form of Pseudo-pounce, having the familiar close with a target, Quickened BTing yourself and the familiar, and then full attacking. If you have a summoned creature out, you can also BT that creature and a person being grappled for hillarious results, especially if what you summoned is a large bison or huge elemental. The more creative you are with this spell, the more awesome it becomes.

Wonton
2010-06-15, 01:36 PM
I Sympathetic vibration the Planet!

Let's see... a Bard/Cleric with DMM: Persist can make SV last 24 hours. And the Earth is technically "freestanding", in space. :smallbiggrin:

Keld Denar
2010-06-15, 01:37 PM
What if you combined Sympathetic Vibrations with a Lyric Thamaturgue's Sonic Might ability. Then it becomes 2d10 + 6d6 damage...

2xMachina
2010-06-15, 01:39 PM
Hold the world to ransom.

Pay me or I'll vibrate the planet to pieces!

PId6
2010-06-15, 01:40 PM
Wings of Cover says:

"Your foe could choose to attack the area in which you have taken cover with an area attack (such as a fireball spell). In this case, you gain a +8 bonus to AC (if applicable) and a +4 bonus on Reflex saves."

Area attacks include bursts, emanations, and spreads.
I can read some intention in making all AoEs work through Wings of Cover, but the RAW still precludes that. You need a specific rule to beat the general one that bursts need LoE, and that line does not. Yes, your foe could choose to attack the area in which you have taken cover. He could use a Fireball spell. That doesn't contradict the general rule though; nothing says the attack would affect you as if there was no cover, and they can attack your area with Confusions all day long without anything taking effect.

I can see a very reasonable houserule saying that WoC doesn't block AoE burst and emanation spells. It's far too powerful as a 2nd level spell currently. Still, as written, it does block nearly everything under the sun that's not a spread.

As a personal opinion, I'm iffy about taking Ruin Delver's Fortune alongside Wings of Cover, even if WoC is houseruled not to block AoEs. Sorcerers' greatest assets are spells known, and 4th level has some of the best spells competing for that slot. If AoEs were the only thing RDF defends against that WoC does not block, I don't really think it's worth the spell known. My opinion though.

Fax Celestis
2010-06-15, 01:41 PM
Sonic damage is reduced by hardness, so it should be:

Uh, no it isn't.


Energy Attacks

Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.

"Apply it normally" and "...just as [it does] to creatures" means "no hardness." Also note how other energy types include a "before applying the hardness" line, while sonic/acid damage does not.

Wonton
2010-06-15, 01:45 PM
"Apply it normally" and "...just as [it does] to creatures" means "no hardness." Also note how other energy types include a "before applying the hardness" line, while sonic/acid damage does not.

In the "Hardness" section, though, it says "Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage". I'd say that's pretty clear-cut.

The "before applying hardness" line just means that you half/quarter the damage BEFORE applying hardness, not after.

Saph
2010-06-15, 01:48 PM
I can read some intention in making all AoEs work through Wings of Cover, but the RAW still precludes that. You need a specific rule to beat the general one that bursts need LoE, and that line does not. Yes, your foe could choose to attack the area in which you have taken cover. He could use a Fireball spell. That doesn't contradict the general rule though; nothing says the attack would affect you as if there was no cover, and they can attack your area with Confusions all day long without anything taking effect.

I can see a very reasonable houserule saying that WoC doesn't block AoE burst and emanation spells. It's far too powerful as a 2nd level spell currently. Still, as written, it does block nearly everything under the sun that's not a spread.

I'd say that's going beyond "rules as written" and into "wilful misinterpretation". It's pretty obvious that the last paragraph is an extension to the previous statement about total cover. You can try to claim that the spell should protect you from literally everything and anything else is a houserule but I think you're likely to get your head smacked by the DM if you do - frankly, it's an incredibly powerful spell even without it, given how many things it shuts down. Trying to rules-lawyer it into being even more powerful than that is an invitation for the DM to take it away from you.

subject42
2010-06-15, 01:48 PM
My two favorite underused spells are Vortex of Teeth and False Gravity.

The first is a HUUUUUGE area of effect (40 foot radius, I think) force spell as a 4th level spell. The best part is that the middle of the cylinder is empty, so you can stand in the middle unharmed.

False Gravity lets you choose which way gravity is pointing once per round. It's like an MC Escher painting in a spell!

Fax Celestis
2010-06-15, 01:48 PM
Whichever, I'm not going to argue this any more here. However, the spell still takes out whole buildings at once. Even the perennial adamantine dagger (lol) only takes out 5' sections at a time.

Greenish
2010-06-15, 01:49 PM
"Apply it normally" means that hardness applies. I recall seeing a WotC article on the subject. I'll try to dig that up, for what it's worth.

and "...just as [it does] to creatures" means "no hardness." Also note how other energy types include a "before applying the hardness" line, while sonic/acid damage does not.Creatures don't typically have hardness. The other energy types specify that they deal less than full damage, and that the reduction is applied before hardness.


[Edit]: I notice that the spell in question specifies that Hardness is not applied to it, much like some of the psionic powers. So I was wrong about that.

VirOath
2010-06-15, 01:55 PM
Do you have a better spell for breaking a wall down with magic? A whole wall at the same time, at that.

Earthquake. Or Shape Stone, then Earthquake. Or Passwall.

PId6
2010-06-15, 01:57 PM
How can anyone not mention Control Winds when discussing property damage? :smallbiggrin:

Fax Celestis
2010-06-15, 02:02 PM
Earthquake. Or Shape Stone, then Earthquake. Or Passwall.

Earthquake, sure. Stone shape only works on stone, sympathetic vibration works on any structure. Passwall only makes a temporary hole, which 99% of the time is what you're going to need anyway.

Still, sympathetic vibration has its uses. Especially with what Keld said. 2d10+6d6 sonic per round? Reduce whatever structure you like into so much rubble.

Magnema
2010-06-15, 02:02 PM
How about disintegrate?

Greenish
2010-06-15, 02:02 PM
How can anyone not mention Control Winds when discussing property damage? :smallbiggrin:Control Weather. That's what I call a 7th level spell.

Wonton
2010-06-15, 02:03 PM
[Edit]: I notice that the spell in question specifies that Hardness is not applied to it, much like some of the psionic powers. So I was wrong about that.

We probably should have actually read the whole spell before arguing. Sorry, Fax. :smallsigh:

That just makes my Persisted Sympathetic Vibration idea even better.

Claudius Maximus
2010-06-15, 02:07 PM
How about disintegrate?

It's hardly overlooked, really.

Edit: Of course you're probably talking about its usefulness in destroying structures. :smallsigh: I think it's pretty good in that regard, and it's my personal favorite way to break through walls due to its other uses.

I'll nominate Mark of Doom. No save, no SR, deals 1d6 damage every time your enemy takes a hostile action. This can really add up, and has even been the main source of damage in some of my party's harder fights. Cleric 3, Paladin 2.

Flickerdart
2010-06-15, 02:10 PM
Earthquake, sure. Stone shape only works on stone, sympathetic vibration works on any structure. Passwall only makes a temporary hole, which 99% of the time is what you're going to need anyway.

Still, sympathetic vibration has its uses. Especially with what Keld said. 2d10+6d6 sonic per round? Reduce whatever structure you like into so much rubble.
Sadly, buildings don't have CRs or give XP. Except of course the Gazebo.

Greenish
2010-06-15, 02:10 PM
It's hardly overlooked, really.He was talking about dealing property damage.

Anyway, Disintegrate is just 10' cube, the Vibrator destroys a whole building.

Tyger
2010-06-15, 02:10 PM
Puppeteer from the SpC. RP possibilities aside, its a Bard only save or die. Doesn't get much sweeter than that!

subject42
2010-06-15, 02:20 PM
I'll nominate Mark of Doom. No save, no SR, deals 1d6 damage every time your enemy takes a hostile action.

What's the source on that one?

The Glyphstone
2010-06-15, 02:23 PM
A few of the Truename-related spells hidden away in Tome of Magic definitely don't get enough love, especially since they're generally better than actual Truespeech. Most of them follow the universal Law of Truespeech Suckitude by requiring personal truenames of targets, but there's a few nice ones.

-Beckon Person?Beckon Monster: For a flat DC15+ Truespeech check, you can pull a Scorpion-esque 'Get Over Here' to an opponent, except that they have to spend their move action. Great for luring casters or ranged enemies closer, or just disrupting potential full attacks. 1st level spell (4th level for nonhumanoids).

-Bulwark of Reality: short-duration Greater Mage Armor that requires you to say your own name. 1st level spell.

TimeWizard
2010-06-15, 03:51 PM
I'm going to sneak a Psionic Power in here:

Deja Vu low level power, with a will save. Target must repeat its last action. Think about that. Whatever the target did last round, it has to do again. Charge? Consume a potion? Cast a spell? This power is the sucker punch i keep up my psionic sleeve. It's only good if you look for opportunities to exploit it, and then its great.

UndeadCleric
2010-06-15, 04:15 PM
What if you combined Sympathetic Vibrations with a Lyric Thamaturgue's Sonic Might ability. Then it becomes 2d10 + 6d6 damage...


Let's see... a Bard/Cleric with DMM: Persist can make SV last 24 hours. And the Earth is technically "freestanding", in space. :smallbiggrin:

So that makes 32 damage a turn on average (21 from Sonic Might, 11 from Sympathetic Vibrations) multiplied by 12 rounds a minutes makes 394 damage in a minute. Multiply that by 60 minutes in an hour makes 23040 damage. Multiply by 24 to create 552,960 damage to the planet. :smallbiggrin: But with 900 hit points per 5ft of unworked stone and the several thousand miles of unworked stone in the earth you fail. Using 1 mile only (1056 5 foot sections), the earths hit points total 950400. If you consider the spell affecting the different sections of the target individually (Usually walls, ceiling, etc) then I'm sure that some parts of the earth would fall apart but not the whole thing. If you want to spend thousands of days killing the earth, be my guest but I think that someone would come to kill you eventually. :smallamused:

Person_Man
2010-06-15, 04:26 PM
I'm going to sneak a Psionic Power in here:

Deja Vu low level power, with a will save. Target must repeat its last action. Think about that. Whatever the target did last round, it has to do again. Charge? Consume a potion? Cast a spell? This power is the sucker punch i keep up my psionic sleeve. It's only good if you look for opportunities to exploit it, and then its great.

It's particularly hilarious if you happen to be fighting on or near a bridge, cliff, or pit. Just stand near the edge, wait for them to move towards you, then take a 5 ft step to your right or left and use Deja Vu. You'll get an AoO on them, and they fall to their doom. Just hope that they don't think the same thing and use a Bull Rush against you before you get a chance to use this...

lsfreak
2010-06-15, 04:35 PM
What's the source on that one?

PHB2. The thing I like about it is that it's available for Chaining, and since it offers no save in the first place, being chained doesn't weaken it. And at 3rd level, a lesser metamagic rod is enough.

I like any of the tactical teleportions - Dimension Shuffle probably being my favorite, but Benign and Baleful Transposition and Greater Slide are all great too. The ones that affect enemies can be really entertaining when you know Anticipate Teleport is going somewhere in the area.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-15, 04:41 PM
It's particularly hilarious if you happen to be fighting on or near a bridge, cliff, or pit. Just stand near the edge, wait for them to move towards you, then take a 5 ft step to your right or left and use Deja Vu. You'll get an AoO on them, and they fall to their doom. Just hope that they don't think the same thing and use a Bull Rush against you before you get a chance to use this...

Well... the one spell I can think of right now is exclusive to a setting I play here... "Luigi's Flatulence". It's a second level spell that lasts 2 hours. Fort save to avoid farting loud and smelly for the spell's duration. Go ahead, cast it on a court member. Or piss off that burly brawler into attacking you. Or alert the guards of that thief sneaking in without alerting your own very very suspicious presence.

AslanCross
2010-06-15, 05:59 PM
It has the [Cold] descriptor, meaning its damage is of the cold type. This is why it doesn't affect creatures of the Cold subtype. If you change the descriptor (via energy substitution), you change the type of damage, and therefore you change the types of creatures that are immune to said damage. I suppose one could argue that the text of the spell that states "creatures of the cold subtype are immune to the effects of shivering touch" has nothing to do with the damage being cold, but that's just bending RAW to fix a spell you can just ban.

Do you have a reference for that rule? I'm not sure I recall it. Either way I do agree that it's easier to just ban the poorly-written sucker.


So you're saying the dragon can... run away? Why not mention Scintillating Scales instead?

Scintillating scales is automatically on my dragons' spell lists anyway. I'm saying it has the mobility to take advantage of its air bombardments. Line-breathing dragons in particular have the range to torch annoying wizards. Protection from energy can only take so much damage.



Could you tell me what else is fun and not fun so I can straighten my life out? To be honest I wouldn't use Shivering Touch in all but the highest optimization games, but I wouldn't go so far as saying one-shotting a dragon using a cheesy spell just isn't fun, period.

I'm sorry if I came off as preachy, but I doubt players would enjoy it if I sent wizards resorting to the same trick at them, even if I do have fun myself. I tend to think that it's best if both the player and the DM don't resort to cheap tricks to "have fun" at the other's expense. I did say in my previous post that it was my opinion regarding the spell.



I'm going to sneak a Psionic Power in here:

Deja Vu low level power, with a will save. Target must repeat its last action. Think about that. Whatever the target did last round, it has to do again. Charge? Consume a potion? Cast a spell? This power is the sucker punch i keep up my psionic sleeve. It's only good if you look for opportunities to exploit it, and then its great.

Deja vu is nasty. It's happened a lot in my campaign that for 1 power point every round, the psion shuts down one of the monsters in the encounter. Usually it's the big bruiser with the low will save.

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-15, 06:54 PM
What if you combined Sympathetic Vibrations with a Lyric Thamaturgue's Sonic Might ability. Then it becomes 2d10 + 6d6 damage...

Sonic Weapon is a tiny little buff for Wizards. A Bard/Lyric Thaumaturge taking it with Extra Spell can Heighten it for a +7d6 Sonic damage buff.

Fizban
2010-06-16, 12:24 AM
Sonic Weapon is a tiny little buff for Wizards. A Bard/Lyric Thaumaturge taking it with Extra Spell can Heighten it for a +7d6 Sonic damage buff.

Ouch. The melee bard just got even nastier.

Keld Denar
2010-06-16, 12:35 AM
Sonic Weapon is a tiny little buff for Wizards. A Bard/Lyric Thaumaturge taking it with Extra Spell can Heighten it for a +7d6 Sonic damage buff.

Why would you need Extra Spell? Lyric Thaumaturge3 gets to learn any one 1st level and any 1 2nd level wiz/sorc spell. Sonic Weapon is a valid choice for the 2nd level one.

kabof
2010-06-16, 12:56 AM
Well... the one spell I can think of right now is exclusive to a setting I play here... "Luigi's Flatulence". It's a second level spell that lasts 2 hours. Fort save to avoid farting loud and smelly for the spell's duration. Go ahead, cast it on a court member. Or piss off that burly brawler into attacking you. Or alert the guards of that thief sneaking in without alerting your own very very suspicious presence.

Wait, that's from Tormenta, isn't it?

Beorn080
2010-06-16, 02:02 AM
So that makes 32 damage a turn on average (21 from Sonic Might, 11 from Sympathetic Vibrations) multiplied by 12 rounds a minutes makes 394 damage in a minute. Multiply that by 60 minutes in an hour makes 23040 damage. Multiply by 24 to create 552,960 damage to the planet. :smallbiggrin: But with 900 hit points per 5ft of unworked stone and the several thousand miles of unworked stone in the earth you fail. Using 1 mile only (1056 5 foot sections), the earths hit points total 950400. If you consider the spell affecting the different sections of the target individually (Usually walls, ceiling, etc) then I'm sure that some parts of the earth would fall apart but not the whole thing. If you want to spend thousands of days killing the earth, be my guest but I think that someone would come to kill you eventually. :smallamused:

I would rule that each 5' cube has its own HP. At 900 HP a cube, dealing the damage to every cube in the planet at once, 3 minutes till the earth shakes its self into itself.

I wonder. The plane of earth is supposedly infinite, but within the infinite space, its technically free standing. Bards destroying entire planes of existence?

Wonton
2010-06-16, 02:04 AM
I would rule that each 5' cube has its own HP. At 900 HP a cube, dealing the damage to every cube in the planet at once, 3 minutes till the earth shakes its self into itself.

I wonder. The plane of earth is supposedly infinite, but within the infinite space, its technically free standing. Bards destroying entire planes of existence?

I like it. I don't even Wizards can pull that off at level 17. :smalltongue:

Beorn080
2010-06-16, 02:09 AM
I like it. I don't even Wizards can pull that off at level 17. :smalltongue:

Wish? It can duplicate 6th level spells, which is what Vibrations is. Plus a much faster casting time. Assuming the wizard didn't ban evocations.

Wonton
2010-06-16, 02:26 AM
Wish? It can duplicate 6th level spells, which is what Vibrations is. Plus a much faster casting time. Assuming the wizard didn't ban evocations.

You'd think I would have remembered that Wizards get level 9 spells at level 17. :smallannoyed:
I was thinking of 8th level spells when I made that claim.

Also, I'm fairly certain Wish can't destroy a planet. :smallconfused:

Beorn080
2010-06-16, 02:33 AM
A couple of wishes might, just keep stacking the vibrations. Sure, you lose 10-20k xp, but with just the dragons alone you probably made back several million xp.

Optimystik
2010-06-16, 02:37 AM
Also, I'm fairly certain Wish can't destroy a planet. :smallconfused:

It can do just about anything - you just have to be VERY careful with the wording.

I can't think of any way to ask for a planet to be destroyed that wouldn't screw you over and/or give you a lesser effect instead, but maybe someone else could.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-16, 03:29 AM
It can do just about anything - you just have to be VERY careful with the wording.

I can't think of any way to ask for a planet to be destroyed that wouldn't screw you over and/or give you a lesser effect instead, but maybe someone else could.
That's just it, a too powerful request, something greater then the carefully prescribed abilities, can be twisted in any way by the DM.
It doesn't matter how well you word it, the DM can just be nasty.
Miracle on the other hand, if you have a god like Rovagug (http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Rovagug) who just wants the world destroyed, just might with the greater option.

ShinyRocks
2010-06-16, 04:40 AM
Deja vu is nasty.


I've been playing too much Pokemon. My brain just went, 'Gelatinous Cube received an Encore!'

How would one go about making a D&D Wobbuffet?

Fizban
2010-06-16, 07:15 AM
Why would you need Extra Spell? Lyric Thaumaturge3 gets to learn any one 1st level and any 1 2nd level wiz/sorc spell. Sonic Weapon is a valid choice for the 2nd level one.

You wouldn't need any extra learning actually: Sonic Weapon is already a Bard spell.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-16, 07:18 AM
Wait, that's from Tormenta, isn't it?
Yes, dear pokébold

kabof
2010-06-16, 07:28 AM
Well, it's always nice to see more brazilians around here. : )

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 08:05 AM
Do you have a better spell for breaking a wall down with magic? A whole wall at the same time, at that.

Wall of Energy (3rd level, IIRC) is pretty darn good at it if you choose sonic damage; which ignores Hardness (Greenish is wrong); both acid and sonic deal full damage to objects with hardness.

Greenish
2010-06-16, 08:26 AM
Wall of Energy (3rd level, IIRC) is pretty darn good at it if you choose sonic damage; which ignores Hardness (Greenish is wrong); both acid and sonic deal full damage to objects with hardness."Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage."

The description for energy damage on objects doesn't say that acid or sonic would ignore hardness: some individual spell/power descriptions specify that. Energy Ray (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/energyRay.htm) has to specifically state that the sonic option (which deals less damage) ignores hardness. In the same power we see Electricity giving a bonus to hit when used against opponents in metal armour, which can be found from quite a few spells with Electricity descriptor. It's not, however, an innate quality of the energy type. The same applies to Sonic: it's not called anywhere as ignoring Hardness.

[Edit]: Yes, both Sonic and Acid deal full damage to objects in the sense that they don't deal partial damage like fire and electricity (1/2) or cold (1/4).

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 08:31 AM
"Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage."

The description for energy damage on objects doesn't say that acid or sonic would ignore hardness: some individual spell/power descriptions specify that. Energy Ray (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/energyRay.htm) has to specifically state that the sonic option (which deals less damage) ignores hardness. In the same power we see Electricity giving a bonus to hit when used against opponents in metal armour, which can be found from quite a few spells with Electricity descriptor. It's not, however, an innate quality of the energy type. The same applies to Sonic: it's not called anywhere as ignoring Hardness.


Energy Attacks

Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.

It says apply damage normally with no mention of hardness; then calls out applying hardness to the other energy types (in addition to their special reductions); whereas the act of calling out the application of hardness would otherwise be redundant. Acid, sonic, cold, and fire are exceptions to the normal rules (whereas force damage like magic missile is not, for example). Acid and sonic being exceptions because they deal damage normally; while fire and cold suffer even further penalties.

Greenish
2010-06-16, 08:41 AM
It says apply damage normally with no mention of hardness;Normally, you apply Hardness.

then calls out applying hardness to the other energy types (in addition to their special reductions); whereas the act of calling out the application of hardness would otherwise be redundant.There are two ways to apply Hardness to fire, cold and electric: either before or after the reduction. This specifies that the percentage reduction takes place before Hardness.

For Sonic and Acid, which do not take percentage reduction, there is only one way to apply hardness and thus examples are not needed.


[Edit]: Off-off-topic, is it mentioned somewhere that wood (as the material) has a vulnerability to fire? Otherwise non-magical fire couldn't damage wood by RAW. :smallamused:

Gadora
2010-06-16, 08:54 AM
[Edit]: Off-off-topic, is it mentioned somewhere that wood (as the material) has a vulnerability to fire? Otherwise non-magical fire couldn't damage wood by RAW. :smallamused:



Vulnerability to Certain Attacks

Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object’s hardness.


'Tis at the DM's discretion.

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 09:01 AM
Normally, you apply Hardness.
There are two ways to apply Hardness to fire, cold and electric: either before or after the reduction. This specifies that the percentage reduction takes place before Hardness.

For Sonic and Acid, which do not take percentage reduction, there is only one way to apply hardness and thus examples are not needed.


[Edit]: Off-off-topic, is it mentioned somewhere that wood (as the material) has a vulnerability to fire? Otherwise non-magical fire couldn't damage wood by RAW. :smallamused:

Except it calls out to deal damage as you would to creatures, and specifically calls out acid and sonic, whereas it doesn't call out force, sacred, divine, positive, negative, and so forth; further showing it as a sign of exception.

Greenish
2010-06-16, 09:07 AM
Except it calls out to deal damage as you would to creatures, and specifically calls out acid and sonic, whereas it doesn't call out force, sacred, divine, positive, negative, and so forth; further showing it as a sign of exception.If Protection from Energy and it's kin are to taken as an indication, Energy types refer to Sonic, Electricity, Fire, Acid and Cold.

What other types of energy are if they aren't energy I don't know.

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 09:16 AM
If Protection from Energy and it's kin are to taken as an indication, Energy types refer to Sonic, Electricity, Fire, Acid and Cold.

What other types of energy are if they aren't energy I don't know.

Positive and negative are obvious ones that pop up very often.

EDIT: Got any more?

Greenish
2010-06-16, 09:44 AM
Positive and negative are obvious ones that pop up very often.In Protection from Energy, Resist Energy, Energy Ray, Energy Ball, Energy Bolt, Energy Burst, Energy Cone, Energy Current, Energy Missile, Energy Push, Energy Ray etc.?

Nope, not seeing Positive or Negative in those, which would suggest that Energy types generally refer to Acid, Sonic, Electric, Fire and Cold. Which explains why the other stuff is not mentioned in the explanation on how Energy types react with Hardness.

EDIT: Got any more?More of what?

Do you have anything but a questionable reading of a single passage to suggest that they would ignore Hardness?

[Edit]: On balance, it's not I have anything more. Oh well.

Emmerask
2010-06-16, 10:06 AM
Energy Absorption (CM) 7th level is a pretty neat spell and not talked about that much I think. 5 ER to any energy type, but you expend it to absorb a single energy attack and heal 1/2 hp.

Throw it on the tank and throw in an aoe energy attack and heal your tank while damaging the enemies.
Or absorb the nasty metamagiced orb of acid the evil wizard throws at you


Also all the spell sequencer/matrix spells are simply awesome :smallwink:

Foryn Gilnith
2010-06-16, 10:09 AM
Do you have anything but a questionable reading of a single passage

It's rather disingenuous to call his reading questionable, IMO. It's true, but on the other hand any possible reading is questionable, most notably yours as well. For all it's worth, I've seen acid (and possibly by extension sonic) more often interpreted as ignoring hardness, but this seems like the sort of thing that's DM's call. I'll look up some stuff in Dungeonscape that might give more evidence one way or another.


1) Acid is usually suggested as an option to melt through locks (Dungeonscape's Doorbuster Kit on page 43, for example). This would be implausible if acid didn't ignore hardness. If acid ignored hardness, sonic would too. However, it may be that acid is super-effective against locks.
2) On the section about the wall of ice, Dungeonscape has this to say.

Fire damage overcomes the wall’s hardness and deals half again as much damage (+50%). Acid deals one-quarter normal damage, while electricity and sonic effects deal full damage (sonic damage ignores the wall’s hardness).
This may be relevant; in what way I'm not entirely sure.
3) The provision in [sonic] psionic powers regarding the ignoring of hardness may imply that sonic does not usually ignore hardness and an exception must be made for the powers. On the other hand, it could be repetition for emphasis.

PS: I hear the FAQ says sonic/acid ignore hardness, but I can't directly cite it and FAQ isn't RAW.

Tytalus
2010-06-16, 10:20 AM
Puppeteer from the SpC. RP possibilities aside, its a Bard only save or die. Doesn't get much sweeter than that!

To be fair, it's a save-(1+ out of 2 times)-or-die.

Cyclocone
2010-06-16, 10:20 AM
I'm pretty fond of Permeable Form from LoM; it's like One With Shadow except 10 levels earlier.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-16, 10:47 AM
Inspired by the mistaken argument that "sonic and acid attacks ignore object hardness" (they don't, and Greenish has cited the rules why*), I'd like to nominate two nifty spells:

Hardening (Spell Compendium)
Augment Object (Stronghold Builder's Guidebook)

These boost hardness and hit points of objects either permanently or for days per casting. Start with special materials and construction, and you can turn a potential vulnerability into a sinkhole into which enemies can harmlessly waste their efforts. The niftiest part is Augment Object, which doubles hardness and hit points, so using other ways of increasing those first really pays off.

Worried about your spiked chain getting sundered? That's not likely to happen when it's a +5 dwarvencraft adamantine chain, magicked up to 84 hardness and 134 hit points. But it is amusing to watch enemies try to break it. :smallcool:


* - The FAQ deals with the acid & sonic vs. hardness issue on page 76, and steps through all the energy types. It's worth reading.

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 10:51 AM
In Protection from Energy, Resist Energy, Energy Ray, Energy Ball, Energy Bolt, Energy Burst, Energy Cone, Energy Current, Energy Missile, Energy Push, Energy Ray etc.?

Nope, not seeing Positive or Negative in those, which would suggest that Energy types generally refer to Acid, Sonic, Electric, Fire and Cold. Which explains why the other stuff is not mentioned in the explanation on how Energy types react with Hardness.
More of what?

Do you have anything but a questionable reading of a single passage to suggest that they would ignore Hardness?

[Edit]: On balance, it's not I have anything more. Oh well.

The irony I find is the fact you say that the spell description of the energy power is no indication or clarification of the rules, and then you resort to the spell descriptions as indication or clarification of the rules. It's funny.

I would pose the fact that positive and negative energy are referred to as such countless times throughout the game. Such as with Inflict Wounds: "When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5)."

The precedence alone is enough evidence to show that they are at least supposed to; but I would pose you a logical question.

If acid and sonic were not exceptions, why bother to call them out at all? If it's only electricity, fire, and cold, then the mentioning of acid and sonic is entirely redundant. Again, there's the whole dealing damage as creatures thing too.

---

Also, thanks Foryn for the support. :smallsmile:

Curmudgeon
2010-06-16, 11:03 AM
Again, there's the whole dealing damage as creatures thing too.
Hardness for objects works the same way DR works for creatures: you subtract it before dealing damage. Simply because D&D is more focused on creatures than objects, there's more elaboration in creature hardness -- hence the different name.

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 11:10 AM
Hardness for objects works the same way DR works for creatures: you subtract it before dealing damage. Simply because D&D is more focused on creatures than objects, there's more elaboration in creature hardness -- hence the different name.

That is patently false. Creature DR is bypassed by energy damage in all cases.

Also, you didn't respond to my previous question. Why call them out if they function as everything else? A question that strongly suggests the reading of the rules as I'm reading them is the correct one.

Greenish
2010-06-16, 11:26 AM
Also, you didn't respond to my previous question. Why call them out if they function as everything else?Why Energy Protection doesn't work against negative energy? It's a mystery!

I called out quite a few of Energy powers (and spells), none of which protect against or deal positive or negative energy. Maybe WotC somehow thinks those are different from "elemental" energies.

And then again, maybe they were excluded because they can't affect objects.


Did you have something else?

Tyger
2010-06-16, 11:28 AM
To be fair, it's a save-(1+ out of 2 times)-or-die.

Actually, if they make the second save, they fall unconscious and helpless... so the first one is the one that really matters.

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 11:33 AM
Why Energy Protection doesn't work against negative energy? It's a mystery!

I called out quite a few of Energy powers (and spells), none of which protect against or deal positive or negative energy. Maybe WotC somehow thinks those are different from "elemental" energies.

And then again, maybe they were excluded because they can't affect objects.

Did you have something else?

Yeah. You still haven't answered my question. Are you only reading half the posts or something?


Why call them out if they function as everything else? A question that strongly suggests the reading of the rules as I'm reading them is the correct one.

olentu
2010-06-16, 11:34 AM
That is patently false. Creature DR is bypassed by energy damage in all cases.

Also, you didn't respond to my previous question. Why call them out if they function as everything else? A question that strongly suggests the reading of the rules as I'm reading them is the correct one.

So then what about creatures that have hardness.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-16, 11:42 AM
Also, you didn't respond to my previous question. Why call them out if they function as everything else?
Because, while sonic and acid energy subtract hardness normally, the remaining damage isn't divided further, unlike other energy types. (Force has its own special rules, particularly regarding incorporeal creatures.) The FAQ is informative on this point:

Many animated objects have hardness scores. What affect, if any, will an animated object’s hardness have on spells used against the animated object? For example, an animated wooden table would have hardness 5, right? How would that hardness affect spells such as fireball, lightning bolt, Melf’s acid arrow, ray of frost, and magic missile?
If the spell in question has an energy descriptor, hardness affects the attack as noted in the rules for damaging inanimate objects (see page 165 in the PH); here’s a summary:
Hardness applies to acid and sonic attacks. These attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to objects, and thus would deal normal damage to an animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a Melf’s acid arrow spell deals to the animated table in your example.
Hardness applies to electricity and fire attacks. These attacks deal half damage to inanimate objects, but animated objects are creatures and they take full damage (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a fireball or lightning bolt spell deals to the animated table in your example. Reduce the damage for a successful saving throw before you apply hardness
Hardness also applies to cold damage. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to inanimate objects, but again, an animated object takes full damage less the effect of the hardness. You would subtract 5 points of damage for hardness from whatever damage a ray of frost spell deals to the animated table in your example. Since ray of frost deals only 1d3 points of damage, it will prove ineffective against the animated table unless you somehow increase the damage the spell deals.
Hardness applies to force attacks. These attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to objects (when applicable), and thus would deal normal damage to an animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a magic missile spell deals to the animated table in your example. A magic missile spell normally cannot be aimed at an object. Because an animated object is a creature, however, it can affect the animated table in the example.

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 12:00 PM
So then what about creatures that have hardness.
They get the benefits of hardness while accepting what bypasses it; just like creatures with DR; is how I've always understood it. Since creatures do not normally possess hardness, this seems like a stretch. The only creatures I can think of off the top of my head that possesses Hardness are animated objects (go figure) and psi-crystals. An exception to the standard.

Example - If you have Hardness 5, DR 10/Silver, and Sonic Resistance 20, then the sonic bypasses both your hardness and DR but then gets eaten by your resistance. If you're wielding a silver dagger, you get eaten by hardness. If you're wielding an adamantine sword, you laugh at the hardness but get eaten by the DR/Silver.



Because, while sonic and acid energy subtract hardness normally, the remaining damage isn't divided further, unlike other energy types. (Force has its own special rules, particularly regarding incorporeal creatures.) The FAQ is informative on this point:

So why not just explain the Fire, Electricity, and Cold damage; since that is the only part you're talking about. That makes no sense. Unless they are in fact exceptions, there is no reason to draw attention to them in a way that could be interpreted otherwise. There is also the aforementioned sonic bard-spell that's entire purposes is breaking stuff with relatively small but continuous sonic damage; the Doorbuster Kit Foryn Gilnith mentioned (you still didn't address his evidence to the case); etc.

The FAQ has a history of being wrong. The Sage has a history of being wrong. This is a perfect example of it contradicting effects that are prevalent throughout the game.

EDIT:
In fact, the FAQ doesn't even make sense when compared to the written rules because it specifies that the fire, electricity, and cold effects do not suffer from the usual drawbacks for hardness when used against creatures with hardness; so I ask you...wtf?

Curmudgeon
2010-06-16, 12:04 PM
The FAQ has a history of being wrong. The Sage has a history of being wrong. Yes, which is why I generally regard the FAQ as a repository of interesting questions to answer myself. In this case, though, the answer is clear and informatory, and stays strictly within the rules.

Claudius Maximus
2010-06-16, 12:07 PM
My books are in another country, but I am positive that the Rules Compendium defines energy types as consisting of acid, cold, electricity, fire and sonic.

Positive and negative energy are not energy types as far as the rules are concerned, even though they are types of damage and have their own inner planes.

Looking in the relevant parts of the Rules Compendium might help solve the hardness debate. I'd have done it if it weren't several thousand miles away.

olentu
2010-06-16, 12:08 PM
They get the benefits of hardness while accepting what bypasses it; just like creatures with DR; is how I've always understood it. Since creatures do not normally possess hardness, this seems like a stretch. The only creatures I can think of off the top of my head that possesses Hardness are animated objects (go figure) and psi-crystals. An exception to the standard.

Example - If you have Hardness 5, DR 10/Silver, and Sonic Resistance 20, then the sonic bypasses both your hardness and DR but then gets eaten by your resistance. If you're wielding a silver dagger, you get eaten by hardness. If you're wielding an adamantine sword, you laugh at the hardness but get eaten by the DR/Silver.




So why not just explain the Fire, Electricity, and Cold damage; since that is the only part you're talking about. That makes no sense. Unless they are in fact exceptions, there is no reason to draw attention to them in a way that could be interpreted otherwise. There is also the aforementioned sonic bard-spell that's entire purposes is breaking stuff with relatively small but continuous sonic damage; the Doorbuster Kit Foryn Gilnith mentioned (you still didn't address his evidence to the case); etc.

The FAQ has a history of being wrong. The Sage has a history of being wrong. This is a perfect example of it contradicting effects that are prevalent throughout the game.

Ok not considering the FAQ stuff, does that not mean that you are saying that hardness works on objects just as it does on creatures in the case of sonic and acid but you are then in the case of creatures saying that hardness for creatures works the same as on objects. However since your argument is that hardness is bypassed by sonic and acid on objects because it is on creatures and it is on creatures because it is on objects your argument is referring to itself for justification.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-16, 12:15 PM
My books are in another country, but I am positive that the Rules Compendium defines energy types as consisting of acid, cold, electricity, fire and sonic.
Your memory is good, CM. From page 42:
Abilities and effects that employ one of the five energy types deal energy damage, which can be acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic.

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 12:20 PM
Ok not considering the FAQ stuff, does that not mean that you are saying that hardness works on objects just as it does on creatures in the case of sonic and acid but you are then in the case of creatures saying that hardness for creatures works the same as on objects. However since your argument is that hardness is bypassed by sonic and acid on objects because it is on creatures and it is on creatures because it is on objects your argument is referring to itself for justification.

Since hardness is a trait of objects, and not a creature ability, yes, you would default to the Hardness rules; which specify that acid and sonic affect objects with hardness as they do creatures (thus requiring resistance to protect against). Hardness is not a special ability/quality, nor is it a condition.


My books are in another country, but I am positive that the Rules Compendium defines energy types as consisting of acid, cold, electricity, fire and sonic.

Positive and negative energy are not energy types as far as the rules are concerned, even though they are types of damage and have their own inner planes.

Looking in the relevant parts of the Rules Compendium might help solve the hardness debate. I'd have done it if it weren't several thousand miles away.

I looked this up earlier, and it lists the primary five as energy types. It doesn't change the fact that positive and negative energy are both energy types; as you are even capable of having Postive Energy Resistance (put that in your pipe and puff it :smalltongue:).


Yes, which is why I generally regard the FAQ as a repository of interesting questions to answer myself. In this case, though, the answer is clear and informatory, and stays strictly within the rules.

Except it doesn't explain why acid and sonic damage were called out as exceptions; instead of just listing the exceptions where exceptions were due. The FAQ goes on to state that there is no difference between the energy types when attacking creatures with hardness; further raising the question.

olentu
2010-06-16, 12:37 PM
Since hardness is a trait of objects, and not a creature ability, yes, you would default to the Hardness rules; which specify that acid and sonic affect objects with hardness as they do creatures (thus requiring resistance to protect against). Hardness is not a special ability/quality, nor is it a condition.

Er using the default hardness rules just means that hardness does nothing on creatures unless they can be referred to as objects. Is that what you are arguing as I wish to be clear on this point.

Malakar
2010-06-16, 12:42 PM
Ashiel, you are being ridiculous.

Hardness is a special ability, and it says "hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object’s hit points"

So clearly when someone attacks a creature with hardness, one of the following things happens:

Animated Objects are creatures, but are no longer objects. Therefore, even though they have hardness, it doesn't apply, because hardness only reduces damage for objects. By this ruling, the hardness ability does nothing, and even a sword swing penetrates hardness automatically.

Animated Objects are both creatures and objects at the same time. Therefore, all damage is subtracted from unless it explicitly says that it ignores hardness. In which case, the way Acid damage deals damage to creatures is by subtracting hardness from damage.

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 12:45 PM
Er using the default hardness rules just means that hardness does nothing on creatures unless they can be referred to as objects. Is that what you are arguing as I wish to be clear on this point.

IE - Hardness prevents damage as it would for objects. If you're a psicrystal and you have hardness 8, then you would ignore 8 points of damage unless it was from a source that ignored it (such as an adamantine weapon, or an acid or sonic attack). Hardness is not a creature ability so we reference what it does from the rules on Objects w/ Hardness.

Objects w/ Hardness say to deal acid and sonic damage as you would to creatures normally. It then goes on to say that objects with hardness get special reductions when certain types of energy attacks are used against them; but the FAQ also mentions these reductions don't apply to creatures with hardness; only the hardness reduction.

Additionally, unless calling it out as an exception, the acid and sonic serve no purpose in being mentioned in the hardness section by Curmudgeon's argument.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-16, 12:47 PM
Except it doesn't explain why acid and sonic damage were called out as exceptions
They're not exceptions except in the phrasing used, because the word normally covers the normal subtraction of hardness:
roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. This normal case is established just 2 paragraphs previously:
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object’s hit points Whenever an object takes damage is a definitive statement of the normal case for when hardness applies.

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 12:47 PM
Ashiel, you are being ridiculous.

Hardness is a special ability, and it says "hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object’s hit points"

So clearly when someone attacks a creature with hardness, one of the following things happens:

Animated Objects are creatures, but are no longer objects. Therefore, even though they have hardness, it doesn't apply, because hardness only reduces damage for objects. By this ruling, the hardness ability does nothing, and even a sword swing penetrates hardness automatically.

Animated Objects are both creatures and objects at the same time. Therefore, all damage is subtracted from unless it explicitly says that it ignores hardness. In which case, the way Acid damage deals damage to creatures is by subtracting hardness from damage.

You need to go back and re-read the thread before telling me I'm being ridiculous. I take no offense to your post, but it's misguided. You're arguing against something I'm not. See my above post.

Wonton
2010-06-16, 12:53 PM
Except it doesn't explain why acid and sonic damage were called out as exceptions; instead of just listing the exceptions where exceptions were due.

You've clearly not bothered actually reading the posts of all the sensible people in this thread. :smallannoyed:

A handy summary:

THE REASON why acid and sonic were called out as exceptions was because, unlike fire, electricity, and cold, there is no flat numerical multiplier that gets added to them.

THE REASON it mentions hardness in the fire, electricity, and cold sections is to say that the damage is halved/quartered BEFORE applying hardness. This is as opposed to the other interpretation, which would be to say that hardness is applied and THEN damage is halved/quartered.

Your argument boils down to the fact that "before applying hardness" is mentioned in the fire, elec, and cold section. The reason that it's not mentioned in the acid and sonic section is because writing "multiply the damage by one before adding hardness" is stupid. They didn't leave it out because hardness doesn't apply. They left it out because "before applying hardness" is a clause that clarifies "multiply the damage by X", and acid and sonic don't have damage multiples.


The FAQ goes on to state that there is no difference between the energy types when attacking creatures with hardness; further raising the question.

All that means is that whichever interpretation you choose is supported, since this clause basically says "Creatures with hardness are damaged the same as objects with hardness", while the clause in the PHB says "Objects with hardness as damaged the same as creatures with hardness".

olentu
2010-06-16, 12:56 PM
IE - Hardness prevents damage as it would for objects. If you're a psicrystal and you have hardness 8, then you would ignore 8 points of damage unless it was from a source that ignored it (such as an adamantine weapon, or an acid or sonic attack). Hardness is not a creature ability so we reference what it does from the rules on Objects w/ Hardness.

Objects w/ Hardness say to deal acid and sonic damage as you would to creatures normally. It then goes on to say that objects with hardness get special reductions when certain types of energy attacks are used against them; but the FAQ also mentions these reductions don't apply to creatures with hardness; only the hardness reduction.

Additionally, unless calling it out as an exception, the acid and sonic serve no purpose in being mentioned in the hardness section by Curmudgeon's argument.

Er objects with hardness says "Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage." Now as I said are you saying that in the case of creatures with hardness we can substitute in creature for object or not.

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 01:09 PM
Er objects with hardness says "Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage." Now as I said are you saying that in the case of creatures with hardness we can substitute in creature for object or not.

Yes and no. It functions as an object for the purposes of this effect; but the object trait says to treat it as a creature normally under this condition.


They're not exceptions except in the phrasing used, because the word normally covers the normal subtraction of hardness:

This normal case is established just 2 paragraphs previously:

Whenever an object takes damage is a definitive statement of the normal case for when hardness applies.

Except that it's not at all normal. In fact, it says you treat it as attacking a creature. If you were treating it as attacking an object it would be normal and thus irrelevant; but Hardness is not a creature trait - and again is called specifically as being different but you're saying it's not. Thus it calls it specifically as doing nothing different than anything else - which is retarded (in the "to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede." sense).


You've clearly not bothered actually reading the posts of all the sensible people in this thread.

A handy summary:

THE REASON why acid and sonic were called out as exceptions was because, unlike fire, electricity, and cold, there is no flat numerical multiplier that gets added to them.

THE REASON it mentions hardness in the fire, electricity, and cold sections is to say that the damage is halved/quartered BEFORE applying hardness. This is as opposed to the other interpretation, which would be to say that hardness is applied and THEN damage is halved/quartered.


So they were called out as being exceptions for functioning EXACTLY LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE!? It's being argued that acid and sonic damage function exactly like every other form of attack ever; so why call them out and say they deal damage to objects as creatures, applying damage normally? Why? Tell me why! Why? Why? Why? Why? Why would you call out something as specifically being identical to everything else in the entire game that deals damage?

The only way that the argument that is being presented works is if you're suggesting that because creatures can posses the trait of an object that the object trait that says to deal damage with a certain type of damage as though they were creatures instead of objects, means the exact same thing.

THAT IS STUPID.

Additionally, as long as this argument continues in such an asinine fashion (with all the redundancy and circular logic); let me throw you another ambiguously worded piece of information as fuel for the fire.

Most (myself included) would say that adamantine weapons would overcome the hardness of an animated object; but if someone wants to be a douche about it, the specific wording says it only ignores the hardness when sundering a weapon or attacking an object; in which case it would totally destroy an iron sword unless that sword was animated.

olentu
2010-06-16, 01:13 PM
Yes and no. It functions as an object for the purposes of this effect; but the object trait says to treat it as a creature normally under this condition.

Yes and normally a creature with hardness subtracts the hardness from the damage it takes if you are allowing for a substitution of creature for object.

Edit:


Most (myself included) would say that adamantine weapons would overcome the hardness of an animated object; but if someone wants to be a douche about it, the specific wording says it only ignores the hardness when sundering a weapon or attacking an object; in which case it would totally destroy an iron sword unless that sword was animated.

Er unless you allow for a substitution of creature for object then hardness does nothing on creatures.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-06-16, 01:13 PM
The general consensus of the internet (on other sites, not just here) seems to align with the FAQ ruling. Oddly enough, I had never considered that reading of the passage prior. The more you know...

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 01:14 PM
Yes and normally a creature with hardness subtracts the hardness from the damage it takes if you are allowing for a substitution of creature for object.

Which makes no sense at all. Because either A) it has an effect or B) it doesn't. It must have an effect because it is called out as specific. If treating it as a creature just means treating it as though it was a creature with hardness (and thus treating it as an object) then it breaks.

The best you've got in that argument is a creature that gets to pretend to be an object for an effect, then that effect says it is to be treated as a creature.

Wonton
2010-06-16, 01:19 PM
So they were called out as being exceptions for functioning EXACTLY LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE!? It's being argued that acid and sonic damage function exactly like every other form of attack ever; so why call them out and say they deal damage to objects as creatures, applying damage normally? Why? Tell me why! Why? Why? Why? Why? Why would you call out something as specifically being identical to everything else in the entire game that deals damage?

Your argument: Because acid and sonic are "called out" in that section, it's clear that that section is supposed to mention some sort of exception, as writing "acid and sonic behave as normal" is redundant.

My counterpoint: We're in the paragraph Hit Points:, under the sub-heading Energy Attacks: (emphasis as in PHB). This is the place where energy attacks will be talked about. This is why acid and sonic are mentioned - not to "call them out" as exceptions, but merely because this is the place where descriptions of acid vs object and sonic vs object should go.

If there were subheadings titled Swords:, Axes:, and Polearms:, those would also have descriptions of weapons doing normal damage to objects.

olentu
2010-06-16, 01:25 PM
Which makes no sense at all. Because either A) it has an effect or B) it doesn't. It must have an effect because it is called out as specific.

The best you've got in that argument is a creature that gets to pretend to be an object for an effect, then that effect says it is to be treated as a creature.

No my argument is that there are three cases.

First the sentence about objects subtracting hardness only applies to objects since one can not substitute creature for object. In this case sonic and acid normally deal full damage to creatures with hardness since the hardness does nothing.

Second a substitution of creature with object is allowed and thus the sentence about objects subtracting hardness reads as creatures subtracting hardness in the case of creatures. In this case sonic and acid have hardness subtracted for creatures with hardness since normally creatures subtract their hardness from the damage they receive.

And in the third rather convoluted one. Only creatures that can be referred to as objects gain any benefit from hardness. Thus as objects being treated as creatures in the case of sonic or acid can be referred to as object hardness is subtracted as it normally would be for creatures that can be referred to as object.

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 01:28 PM
Your argument: Because acid and sonic are "called out" in that section, it's clear that that section is supposed to mention some sort of exception, as writing "acid and sonic behave as normal" is redundant.

My counterpoint: We're in the paragraph Hit Points:, under the sub-heading Energy Attacks: (emphasis as in PHB). This is the place where energy attacks will be talked about. This is why acid and sonic are mentioned - not to "call them out" as exceptions, but merely because this is the place where descriptions of acid vs object and sonic vs object should go.

If there were subheadings titled Swords:, Axes:, and Polearms:, those would also have descriptions of weapons doing normal damage to objects.

Simply saying energy attacks function normally except would have been suitable; and avoided any ambiguous interpretation. It's still redundant to say that you treat them as creatures normally (hardness not being a creature feature). Why not just say they deal damage to objects as other forms of attacks? Why call them out as dealing damage as though they were creatures and not objects with hardness?

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 02:21 PM
No my argument is that there are three cases.

First the sentence about objects subtracting hardness only applies to objects since one can not substitute creature for object. In this case sonic and acid normally deal full damage to creatures with hardness since the hardness does nothing.

Second a substitution of creature with object is allowed and thus the sentence about objects subtracting hardness reads as creatures subtracting hardness in the case of creatures. In this case sonic and acid have hardness subtracted for creatures with hardness since normally creatures subtract their hardness from the damage they receive.

And in the third rather convoluted one. Only creatures that can be referred to as objects gain any benefit from hardness. Thus as objects being treated as creatures in the case of sonic or acid can be referred to as object hardness is subtracted as it normally would be for creatures that can be referred to as object.

I'm going to try and explain this as best as I can. In a series of steps to try and avoid confusion on my side or anyone else's.


Hardness is not a special ability or condition for creatures. It is a function of "Object". Creatures do not normally possess a hardness.
Hardness is a function of "Object". Hardness reduces all damage to the Object by an amount indicated in its hardness.
The hardness effect calls out that Acid and Sonic damages treat the object as a Creature, dealing damage normally.*
A few creatures have hardness. Since hardness is not a creature ability we check the Hardness rules for Objects. Logically we treat these creatures as Objects for the purposes of resolving hardness - since hardness is an Object trait, not a Creature trait. *
Since hardness is an Object trait and not a Creature trait, creatures with Hardness are exceptions to the normal rules for Creatures.*


These conditions function with perfect logic (no redundancy, no circular logic, etc).

Objects have a Hardness as part of being an Object. Acid and Sonic deal damage as though they were Creatures; negating Hardness trait.
Creatures with Hardness function as Objects for the purposes of determining the effects of their Hardness.
Acid and Sonic deal damage to the Object as a Creature, which in turn means that the Creature posing as Object now resolves as Creature again; negating the benefit of Hardness.
Since Hardness is not a trait of Creature, we understand that resolving an effects of Hardness as a Creature means resolving it as if it did not exist; not resolving it as a specific sub-creature with Hardness posing as an Object.


The d20 system functions very much like a C++ program with Classes and traits for each part of the system. A subset of a Class (in this case Creature) can share a trait with a seperate Class (in this case Object), but those traits are not necessarily traits of the Creature class. Such is exception based design.

The argument that has been made against my position poses that since there exists certain creatures with Hardness, it means that resolving the effect as a Creature instead of an Object means that you resolve it as you would an Object; which creates a nonsensical loop and also makes it very redundant. Additionally, it makes the wording of the effect seem strange.

Finally, the crux of these argument falls on your interpretation of "normal" in this sentence: "Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit". This game is exception based design. It calls out resolving the effects as if it were used on a creature, and then specifies as normal. Hence, normal in this case refers to creatures; not resolving the effect exactly as you would have otherwise if you didn't resolve it as if attacking a creature (because that is just stupid).

Additionally, I'm looking for the actual rules where it says that creatures with hardness aren't subject to the energy reductions specified by Hardness under the Object traits; because I'm curious about it (since why would being the same object, only animated, render you more vulnerable to electricity, fire, or cold); so if anyone can point me to the exception clause for creatures I'd appreciate it.

olentu
2010-06-16, 03:05 PM
I'm going to try and explain this as best as I can. In a series of steps to try and avoid confusion on my side or anyone else's.


Hardness is not a special ability or condition for creatures. It is a function of "Object". Creatures do not normally possess a hardness.
Hardness is a function of "Object". Hardness reduces all damage to the Object by an amount indicated in its hardness.
The hardness effect calls out that Acid and Sonic damages treat the object as a Creature, dealing damage normally.*
A few creatures have hardness. Since hardness is not a creature ability we check the Hardness rules for Objects. Logically we treat these creatures as Objects for the purposes of resolving hardness - since hardness is an Object trait, not a Creature trait. *
Since hardness is an Object trait and not a Creature trait, creatures with Hardness are exceptions to the normal rules for Creatures.*


These conditions function with perfect logic (no redundancy, no circular logic, etc).

Objects have a Hardness as part of being an Object. Acid and Sonic deal damage as though they were Creatures; negating Hardness trait.
Creatures with Hardness function as Objects for the purposes of determining the effects of their Hardness.
Acid and Sonic deal damage to the Object as a Creature, which in turn means that the Creature posing as Object now resolves as Creature again; negating the benefit of Hardness.
Since Hardness is not a trait of Creature, we understand that resolving an effects of Hardness as a Creature means resolving it as if it did not exist; not resolving it as a specific sub-creature with Hardness posing as an Object.


The d20 system functions very much like a C++ program with Classes and traits for each part of the system. A subset of a Class (in this case Creature) can share a trait with a seperate Class (in this case Object), but those traits are not necessarily traits of the Creature class. Such is exception based design.

The argument that has been made against my position poses that since there exists certain creatures with Hardness, it means that resolving the effect as a Creature instead of an Object means that you resolve it as you would an Object; which creates a nonsensical loop and also makes it very redundant. Additionally, it makes the wording of the effect seem strange.

Finally, the crux of these argument falls on your interpretation of "normal" in this sentence: "Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit". This game is exception based design. It calls out resolving the effects as if it were used on a creature, and then specifies as normal. Hence, normal in this case refers to creatures; not resolving the effect exactly as you would have otherwise if you didn't resolve it as if attacking a creature (because that is just stupid).

Additionally, I'm looking for the actual rules where it says that creatures with hardness aren't subject to the energy reductions specified by Hardness under the Object traits; because I'm not curious about it (since why would being the same object, only animated, render you more vulnerable to electricity, fire, or cold); so if anyone can point me to the exception clause for creatures I'd appreciate it.

You are not really going by the rules due to making an extension but then let me try to explain again.

Hardness gives no benefits to things that can not be called objects since the sentence "Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage." makes no reference to anything but objects and there is no similar sentence that I can see for creatures. Any extension of the rules logical or not does not apply except in the case of another piece of rules that specifically adds additional ability to the hardness rules or changes them to allow creatures that can not be called objects (unless the discussion is taking place in laser eyes land and I must assume that it is not).

So we are back to only three cases (1) creatures that are not called objects, (2) creatures that are also called objects, and (3) objects that are not called creatures.

For cases two and three they must follow the rule "Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage". For them not to do so would be breaking the rules unless there is a specific exception.

Coidzor
2010-06-16, 03:29 PM
For cases two and three they must follow the rule "Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage". For them not to do so would be breaking the rules unless there is a specific exception.

That's just the thing. That's the argument is based on. The bit about acid and sonic doing it as to a creature normally rather than acid and sonic merely have hardness subtracted.

That would be a case of something specific trumping the general.

olentu
2010-06-16, 03:35 PM
That's just the thing. That's the argument is based on. The bit about acid and sonic doing it as to a creature normally rather than acid and sonic merely have hardness subtracted.

That would be a case of something specific trumping the general.

Er the specific exception says as creatures not as creatures that can specifically not be called objects.

Greenish
2010-06-16, 04:42 PM
I looked this up earlier, and it lists the primary five as energy types. It doesn't change the fact that positive and negative energy are both energy types; as you are even capable of having Postive Energy Resistance (put that in your pipe and puff it :smalltongue:).Ah, it seems that someone finally got through to you why the energy types were mentioned at the section that deals with energy types. I wonder what you fall back to when you can no longer defend the "as creatures" position?

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-16, 04:48 PM
I was really hoping that the new pages would have some overlooked spells I hadn't thought about before.

Gemjump SpC p.101
A level 6 sorcerer/wizard spell that allows you to attune a gem to yourself. When you speak the command word (specified at the time of casting), you and other creatures (maximum determined by CL) automatically teleport to the location of the gem, with no chance of error, provided you and the gem are on the same plane.

It's a great way to provide keep a teleportation network set up without burning current spell slots. Plus, the vulnerability of trickery (someone moving your gem) makes it interesting to use in actual play.

The "no chance of error" makes it shine, since greater teleport is level 7. The sorcerer I used to play ages ago picked this up and never regretted it. Very fun. He gave a gem to every one of the party members and kept a few gems on hand. If he needed to go to one of them and distance was an issue, he'd simply say the command word and hand them a new gem.

Hilarity ensued when the barbarian sold his gem in a barter and the sorcerer gemjumped to the merchant's vault to retrieve it.

Greenish
2010-06-16, 04:55 PM
I was really hoping that the new pages would have some overlooked spells I hadn't thought about before.You an optimist, you.

Well, I like the Wood Wose, which is basically a druid equivalent of Unseen Servant, but performs more outdoorsy tasks. It can make a campfire for you, and fish. I just love the image of a wood spirit fishing for you while you kick back and take it easy.

Optimystik
2010-06-16, 05:17 PM
I've got a fun one; Unname, from Tome of Magic.

For when you absolutely, positively, have to rub them out of reality. Tired of True Resurrection ruining your day? Hate having to keep all your enemies' trapped souls on the shelf? This spell is for you.

Not only do you have to succeed at saying the target's Truename though... Fort negates as well. :smallyuk:

The picture is neat though:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ToMagic_Gallery/96129.jpg

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-16, 05:37 PM
You an optimist, you.

No, no, that's his job:


succeed at saying the target's Truename though... Fort negates as well. :smallbiggrin:

I'd rather give a commoner a thinaun dagger and tell him to go kill my enemy that try to unname something successfully. Talking someone out of existence is too awesome to ignore though.

Triadspell SpC p.224
A level 5 cleric spell with an instantaneous duration that allows you to cast any one 3rd-level or lower spell a total of three times before it is considered expended. If you're in a campaign that has any downtime, this spell is almost a ring of wizardry I, II, AND III for your cleric.

Unfortunately, it looks as though if you were to spontaneously cure or inflict using a spell altered by triadspell, the extra castings would be lost.

Makiru
2010-06-16, 06:20 PM
Keeping this thread on track, my group is very fond of Solipism (SpC p.194 Sorc/Wiz 7) and Flensing (SpC p.95 Sorc/Wiz 8).

Solipism is Illusion (Phantasm) [Mind-Effecting], verbal only, counts SR and is Will negate, but it effectively shuts down a creature for CL rounds. It won't even defend itself, meaning all the beatsticks can take their sweet time on the rest of the encounter and all get in position for simultaneous coup de graces.

Flensing is Transmutation [Evil], close range, Fort partial, SR yes, and last 4 rounds. Failing the save means the poor creature takes 2d6 damage, 1d6 Charisma damage AND 1d6 Constitution damage for EACH round. Making the save means you only take half the regular damage and none of the ability damage, but the entire thing is just nasty!


As for myself, a spell I found when making a Transmutation-focused Changeling Sorceress/Recaster was Giant's Wrath (SpC p.105 Druid/Sorc/Wiz 3). It takes a swift action to cast and enchants one pebble per three levels, lasting CL rounds. Throwing a pebble as an attack action causes it to grow into a boulder mid-flight with range of 120 feet. The boulder does 2d6+Str mod damage, with a bonus to attack and damage equal to your caster level (max +10). My wimpy little caster was shooting gnolls out of trees with this thing, and getting a DM-approved bonus to Intimidate because I was throwing f'ing BOULDERS!

Fax Celestis
2010-06-16, 08:27 PM
As for myself, a spell I found when making a Transmutation-focused Changeling Sorceress/Recaster was Giant's Wrath (SpC p.105 Druid/Sorc/Wiz 3). It takes a swift action to cast and enchants one pebble per three levels, lasting CL rounds. Throwing a pebble as an attack action causes it to grow into a boulder mid-flight with range of 120 feet. The boulder does 2d6+Str mod damage, with a bonus to attack and damage equal to your caster level (max +10). My wimpy little caster was shooting gnolls out of trees with this thing, and getting a DM-approved bonus to Intimidate because I was throwing f'ing BOULDERS!

It also stacks with magic stone.

I forgot about extract water elemental. Deals dessication damage, and if it kills them they turn into a water elemental to do your bidding. Sor/Wiz/Dru 6, I believe.

Thurbane
2010-06-16, 09:39 PM
I don't know if it's been mentioned - but Solid Fog. Pretty damn neat crowd control spell - unless enemy includes someone with a handy Dispel, FoM, Dim Door or Gust of Wind, they are stuck there for several rounds, while the party has time to heal, buff, ready actions and whatever else they feel like.

SR "No" Save "No". Yummy. :smallsmile:

senrath
2010-06-16, 09:44 PM
I don't think that Solid Fog qualifies as "overlooked".

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 10:20 PM
Er the specific exception says as creatures not as creatures that can specifically not be called objects.

That's circular logic. It doesn't specifically say as creatures that can be called objects; and Hardness is not a quality of creatures, so you would resolve as a creature, not an Object. You're requiring a very specific leap to make the effect work the way Greenish is saying; a leap that makes the sentence itself make no sense at all. As opposed to the way I'm saying it resolves; in which case it means something.

Hence, Acid and Sonic deal damage to objects normally (IE - no hardness reductions).


Ah, it seems that someone finally got through to you why the energy types were mentioned at the section that deals with energy types. I wonder what you fall back to when you can no longer defend the "as creatures" position?

Which totally explains why you can have Positive Energy Resistance; aye? Yeah, either read it context or don't post about it. I mean really.


I don't think that Solid Fog qualifies as "overlooked".
It is in a lot of games actually. In games where people think fireball is the bestest 3rd level wizard spell ever. :smalltongue:

Emmerask
2010-06-16, 10:21 PM
If you ever face huge masses of enemies or even an army
Blackfire (SpC) will take care of nearly everyone :smallwink:

1d3 con damage each round spreads to all adjacent creatures and I think you need to make 3 fort saves in succession to stop the spell... completely overpowered :smallwink:

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 10:49 PM
If you ever face huge masses of enemies or even an army
Blackfire (SpC) will take care of nearly everyone :smallwink:

1d3 con damage each round spreads to all adjacent creatures and I think you need to make 3 fort saves in succession to stop the spell... completely overpowered :smallwink:

Wow, that is sick. :smalleek:

In some groups summon monster I-IX and summon nature's ally I-IX are often overlooked. I've found many people just look at them as brutes and cannon fodder; but you can summon them for magic; such as using Latern Archons to cast continual flame without the expensive component; or summoning a Unicorn to heal your entire party with three castings of cure light wounds, cure moderate wounds once, and neutralize poison once; which is far more utility than an equal-level cure serious wounds spell at the same level.

So not exactly under-appreciated spells; but under appreciated uses for those spells.

I would also say Tiny Hut is a good one, since it can provide total concealment for you and your group while not hindering you at all; in addition to its obvious uses. :smallsmile:

arguskos
2010-06-16, 11:10 PM
Wow, that is sick. :smalleek:
Not really, as Blackfire is like an 8th level spell or something silly. It's highly niche use, and really, if you're against a mook army and have that level of casting, well, they sorta weren't going to win anyways.

Emmerask
2010-06-16, 11:12 PM
Ah forgot to mention each round you make your fort save you are only sickened, no 1d3 con damage and each adjacent creature has to make a ref save to avoid the spell (each round) so that makes it a tiny bit better for those targeted ^^

It is still an awesome spell of mass destruction with exponential killing power :smallbiggrin:


Not really, as Blackfire is like an 8th level spell or something silly. It's highly niche use, and really, if you're against a mook army and have that level of casting, well, they sorta weren't going to win anyways.

Well yes, but if you face 1000 or so enemeies it is the difference between spending a massive amount of spellslots or just casting once and walking away in triumph :smallbiggrin:

olentu
2010-06-16, 11:48 PM
That's circular logic. It doesn't specifically say as creatures that can be called objects; and Hardness is not a quality of creatures, so you would resolve as a creature, not an Object. You're requiring a very specific leap to make the effect work the way Greenish is saying; a leap that makes the sentence itself make no sense at all. As opposed to the way I'm saying it resolves; in which case it means something.

Hence, Acid and Sonic deal damage to objects normally (IE - no hardness reductions).

Er the way you are saying it it still means nothing since you have not seemed to have been consistent on hardness for creatures. Or at least not without extending the rules.

In either case we can come back to that since as I said there are only three choices and it whether the previous discussion matters comes down to this question. Can creatures ever benefit from hardness. If yes then some creatures must be able to be said to be objects and if no then no creatures must be able to be said to be objects. This is since hardness is as you have said is only defined as doing anything for objects and one can not extend it to creatures without going into DM fiat unless the creatures can be referred to as objects.

And thus we are back to my original question "So then what about creatures that have hardness." that as far as I can tell you have not answered in a consistent fashion that does not involve changing the rules. This really is a very important question as it determines if your position involves changing the rules or not.

So then I ask again what about creatures that have hardness.

Thurbane
2010-06-17, 12:19 AM
I don't think that Solid Fog qualifies as "overlooked".
...you'd be surprised. Easily overlooked by newer players.

Ashiel
2010-06-17, 12:41 AM
Er the way you are saying it it still means nothing since you have not been consistent on hardness for creatures.

In either case we can come back to that since as I said there are only three choices and it whether the previous discussion matters comes down to this question. Can creatures ever benefit from hardness. If yes then some creatures must be able to be said to be objects and if no then no creatures must be able to be said to be objects. This is since hardness is as you have said is only defined as doing anything for objects and one can not extend it to creatures without going into DM fiat unless the creatures can be referred to as objects.

And thus we are back to my original question "So then what about creatures that have hardness." that as far as I can tell you have not answered in a consistent fashion that does not involve changing the rules. This really is a very important question as it determines if your position involves changing the rules or not.

So then I ask again what about creatures that have hardness.

I've already answered this at least once, but I think I've answered it more than that. It's simple; you're just overcomplicating things.

Hardness is not an quality of Creatures. Hardness an Object quality. Some creatures posses Hardness, which functions as Hardness with Objects. So yes, Creatures with Hardness are treated as Objects for the purpose of Hardness; however Objects are treated as Creatures when dealt Acid or Sonic damage - negating the hardness quality because Hardness is not a quality of Creatures; though a select few creatures possess it. This is because d20 is exception based design. By that logic, if you're dealing damage to it, then is likely immune to that type of damage because SOME creatures are resistant or immune to it. That kind of thinking does not work.

Otherwise the sentence has no purpose, and the examples are retarded; because treating them as creatures to treat them as objects is stupid; serves no purpose, and would be no different than any other attack form not specified; whereas if you read it context then it makes perfect sense (IE - Acid and Sonic ignore hardness because you get to deal damage as though you are attacking a creature; which needs Energy Resistance or Immunity to stop).


...you'd be surprised. Easily overlooked by newer players.
No kidding. I've found most of the cloud spells to be overlooked by players. Honestly, almost any spell that doesn't deal damage is overlooked by new players. I had a couple of players who were absolutely amazed by grease in a game where a Psion was manifesting it repeatedly. While the Psion dealt little damage the whole fight (she readied an action to blast a drider who had recently cast fireball to disrupt her castings), the rest of the party cheered for her ensuring their victory by keeping all their enemies on greasy lockdown.

olentu
2010-06-17, 01:03 AM
I've already answered this at least once, but I think I've answered it more than that. It's simple; you're just overcomplicating things.

Hardness is not an quality of Creatures. Hardness an Object quality. Some creatures posses Hardness, which functions as Hardness with Objects. So yes, Creatures with Hardness are treated as Objects for the purpose of Hardness; however Objects are treated as Creatures when dealt Acid or Sonic damage - negating the hardness quality.

Otherwise the sentence has no purpose, and the examples are retarded; because treating them as creatures to treat them as objects is stupid; serves no purpose, and would be no different than any other attack form not specified; whereas if you read it context then it makes perfect sense (IE - Acid and Sonic ignore hardness because you get to deal damage as though you are attacking a creature; which needs Energy Resistance or Immunity to stop).

Er you are still extending the rules rather then not doing so in answering my question or providing sufficient rules text to make my question of no matter. But then again I suppose I forgot to ask you not to.

Also you seem to be giving WotC too much credit in that you seem to be assuming that everything is of great import rather then accepting the possibility that they wrote some stuff that means nothing or just messed up in getting across what they were trying to.

In either case hardness only does anything in the case of objects (barring laser eyes or new rules) and so I will modify my question and ask the following, without extending the rules can creatures ever benefit from hardness taking into consideration that if yes then some creatures must be able to be said to be objects and if no then no creatures must be able to be said to be objects.

An alternative is if you can provide some rules text that demonstrates how creatures with hardness can use their hardness without needing to be able to be referred to as objects as then that would provide the answer to the question I have asked.

Ashiel
2010-06-17, 01:23 AM
Er you are still extending the rules rather then not doing so in answering my question or providing sufficient rules text to make my question of no matter. But then again I suppose I forgot to ask you not to.

Also you seem to be giving WotC too much credit in that you seem to be assuming that everything is of great import rather then accepting the possibility that they wrote some stuff that means nothing or just messed up in getting across what they were trying to.

In either case hardness only does anything in the case of objects (barring laser eyes or new rules) and so I will modify my question and ask the following, without extending the rules can creatures ever benefit from hardness taking into consideration that if yes then some creatures must be able to be said to be objects and if no then no creatures must be able to be said to be objects.

An alternative is if you can provide some rules text that demonstrates how creatures with hardness can use their hardness without needing to be able to be referred to as objects as then that would provide the answer to the question I have asked.

It's called common sense. Do you remember being in kindergarten and playing those maze games with a pencil? When you go through a path and the path's outcome is blocked or otherwise does not function? It's like that.

Yes, I'm saying creatures can be treated as Objects for Hardness; hence the Hardness quality shared by Animated Objects and Psi-crystals. However, that's because they are being treated as Objects for the purpose of resolving this ability. To my knowledge, I don't believe this was an issue; unless you're arguing that creatures with Hardness do not benefit from it - in which case I have little interesting in carrying on that conversation.

The Hardness quality for Objects says that you treat attacks that deal Acid or Sonic damage as though they were targeting creatures, resolve normally. In this case, normally means resolving it as if you were attacking creatures (IE - hardness doesn't apply). Should a creature such as an Animated Object be attacked, then it's treated as an Object for Hardness; but Acid and Sonic target it as a creature, overcoming its hardness as it would be if not animated.

The alternative interpretations are:

Creatures cannot benefit from Hardness because it's not a Creature ability nor is it defined for creatures. (I do not subscribe to this idea)
Acid and Sonic Damage deal damage to Objects as Creatures pretending to Objects; resolve the attack as though you were attacking an Object. (I do not subscribe to this idea either; it's nonsensical)


Both cases make the rules text excessively redundant and self-defeating. What I'm saying actually works without getting tied up in itself.

olentu
2010-06-17, 01:50 AM
It's called common sense. Do you remember being in kindergarten and playing those maze games with a pencil? When you go through a path and the path's outcome is blocked or otherwise does not function? It's like that.

Yes, I'm saying creatures can be treated as Objects for Hardness; hence the Hardness quality shared by Animated Objects and Psi-crystals. However, that's because they are being treated as Objects for the purpose of resolving this ability. To my knowledge, I don't believe this was an issue; unless you're arguing that creatures with Hardness do not benefit from it - in which case I have little interesting in carrying on that conversation.

The Hardness quality for Objects says that you treat attacks that deal Acid or Sonic damage as though they were targeting creatures, resolve normally. In this case, normally means resolving it as if you were attacking creatures (IE - hardness doesn't apply). Should a creature such as an Animated Object be attacked, then it's treated as an Object for Hardness; but Acid and Sonic target it as a creature, overcoming its hardness as it would be if not animated.

The alternative interpretations are:

Creatures cannot benefit from Hardness because it's not a Creature ability nor is it defined for creatures. (I do not subscribe to this idea)
Acid and Sonic Damage deal damage to Objects as Creatures pretending to Objects; resolve the attack as though you were attacking an Object.


Both cases make the rules text excessively redundant and self-defeating. What I'm saying actually works without getting tied up in itself.

Whoa whoa whoa, common sense. If I was dealing with common sense I would not be talking about how the D&D rules actually work. If you are making a common sense argument then that is fine but it really has no place in a discussion as to what the rules actually say considering all the wacky stuff the rules do say.


Well in that case if you wish to make an argument based on common sense then we really have nothing to discuss since I was talking about rules that may or may not have anything to do with that.

Ashiel
2010-06-17, 02:26 AM
Whoa whoa whoa, common sense. If I was dealing with common sense I would not be talking about how the D&D rules actually work. If you are making a common sense argument then that is fine but it really has no place in a discussion as to what the rules actually say considering all the wacky stuff the rules do say.


Well in that case if you wish to make an argument based on common sense then we really have nothing to discuss since I was talking about rules that may or may not have anything to do with that.

The common sense is not specifically in interpreting the rules (though it's a darn good help). The common sense comes in finding that out of the three possible interpretations, only one functions without a hitch.

1: Resolves without oddity, and keeps everything functioning properly.
2: Does not resolve because it loops like a C++ program, and ignores the context the rules present it in.
3: Lacks the problems of 2, but now invalidates the Hardness quality that is possessed by creatures such as Animated Objects and Psicrystals.

Call it whatever-his-name-is's law; but the 1st is not only the simplest, but it is also the only one that keeps everything working; and it doesn't conflict with the wording of the rules; and it doesn't rely on the rules being redundant.

Is this just an attempt to be difficult?

arguskos
2010-06-17, 02:28 AM
Call it whatever-his-name-is's law
I believe you are referencing Occam's Razor: that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Just trying to be helpful.

Oh, and back on topic for a moment, I like me some Sword and Hammer. Flanking +1 spiritual weapons? NOICE. :smallcool:

Kantolin
2010-06-17, 02:51 AM
Recently(ish), a cleric with the fire domain in our group discovered Fire Seeds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireSeeds.htm).

The sheer ability to hurt people with a bag of those things is nasty. With the casting time, you can even do it twice, put them in a bag or something, use a mild energy resistance on yourself and then at any point within 10min/level, walk up to someone, command word them, and deal them a heckuvalot of damage.

Our game is seriously low-optimized, so uh, he's avoided using them for much.

Then a kind of cool one is Otiluke's Freezing Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/freezingSphere.htm). Not necessarily useful as it's a fairly standard 1d6/level reflex half blast, but it's an ice damage spell which is interesting in core, and your ability to hold the charge gives it delayed blast fireball-like qualities. Since it was discovered, it's become fairly popular for core blasters that are about.

Neither of these are that awesome per se, but they're a lot neater and were quite overlooked. ^_^

Ashiel
2010-06-17, 03:16 AM
I believe you are referencing Occam's Razor: that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Just trying to be helpful.

Oh, and back on topic for a moment, I like me some Sword and Hammer. Flanking +1 spiritual weapons? NOICE. :smallcool:

Yes, thank you Arguskos. You have been most helpful. :smallsmile:

Makiru
2010-06-17, 06:05 AM
It also stacks with magic stone.

I forgot about extract water elemental. Deals dessication damage, and if it kills them they turn into a water elemental to do your bidding. Sor/Wiz/Dru 6, I believe.

Another one of my players was quite fond of that one as well. It was actually how I introduced a Master of Many Forms into the late game, which was funny when the caster kinda went nuts wondering why his water elemental was lasting for so long and turned into an aquatic elf with a wounding longbow.

olentu
2010-06-17, 11:40 AM
The common sense is not specifically in interpreting the rules (though it's a darn good help). The common sense comes in finding that out of the three possible interpretations, only one functions without a hitch.

1: Resolves without oddity, and keeps everything functioning properly.
2: Does not resolve because it loops like a C++ program, and ignores the context the rules present it in.
3: Lacks the problems of 2, but now invalidates the Hardness quality that is possessed by creatures such as Animated Objects and Psicrystals.

Call it whatever-his-name-is's law; but the 1st is not only the simplest, but it is also the only one that keeps everything working; and it doesn't conflict with the wording of the rules; and it doesn't rely on the rules being redundant.

Is this just an attempt to be difficult?

Er it is not an attempt to be difficult since you are in fact extending the rules. No matter how reasonable or giving a reasonable result extending the rules may be you are still extending the rules.

Really the rules are what they are and if the simplest explanation requires extending the rules then it is not the most correct for being under the rules unless it is the only possible one. And in fact since it involves adding in something that was not originally there I would say that it is not simplest because what people choose to add would vary person by person.

So if you are going to make an argument based on an extension of the rules that you find reasonable we are really not discussing the same thing. This is of course fine but I would prefer to know.

Ashiel
2010-06-17, 02:55 PM
Er it is not an attempt to be difficult since you are in fact extending the rules. No matter how reasonable or giving a reasonable result extending the rules may be you are still extending the rules.

Really the rules are what they are and if the simplest explanation requires extending the rules then it is not the most correct for being under the rules unless it is the only possible one. And in fact since it involves adding in something that was not originally there I would say that it is not simplest because what people choose to add would vary person by person.

So if you are going to make an argument based on an extension of the rules that you find reasonable we are really not discussing the same thing. This is of course fine but I would prefer to know.


Hardness

Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object’s hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points; Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points; and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).


Energy Attacks

Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.

Hardness is a quality of Objects, not creatures. In the context that the rules are written in, Acid and Sonic damage deal damage as though the object was a creature; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Normally in this case would mean to not apply hardness because of both its context and the alternative being self-defeating.

The argument earlier was made that since some creatures that - specific creatures - have Hardness, then the sentence must mean to apply hardness normally since you're attacking it as a creature with Hardness. However Hardness is no more a universal characteristic of Creatures than Immunity; hence the meaning of the sentence is telling you to just roll damage normally instead of modifying it for it being an object.

Now one could, if they are intentionally trying to create problems within the rules, argue that since Hardness is an Object trait (and never makes an effort to say otherwise), Animated Objects do not receive the benefit of their Hardness, nor do Psi-crystals; but I (and I hope others) would feel this is intentionally trying to read the rules in a troublesome fashion.


Hardness (Ex)

An animated object has the same hardness it had before it was animated.

However, I found the most logical way is to of course follow the Hardness rules, we would treat the animated object as (you guessed it) an Object; only to then treat it like a Creature (but not THE creature) if it was being attacked with Acid, Sonic, or similar Hardness overcoming attack (such as an Adamantine weapon if the object's hardness is < 20).

I'm not making up rules; but I did say how it can be resolved without issue; which was merely an interpretation of what the rules mean - but more specifically, an interpretation that works without circular loops or redundancy.

Fitz10019
2010-06-17, 03:09 PM
Animate Rope

It animates rope while completely ignoring hardness.

Il_Vec
2010-06-17, 03:09 PM
Please, start a tread on hardness discussion and stop clogging the Overlooked Spells tread.

olentu
2010-06-17, 03:12 PM
Hardness is a quality of Objects, not creatures. In the context that the rules are written in, Acid and Sonic damage deal damage as though the object was a creature; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Normally in this case would mean to not apply hardness because of both its context and the alternative being self-defeating.

The argument earlier was made that since some creatures that - specific creatures - have Hardness, then the sentence must mean to apply hardness normally since you're attacking it as a creature with Hardness. However Hardness is no more a universal characteristic of Creatures than Immunity; hence the meaning of the sentence is telling you to just roll damage normally instead of modifying it for it being an object.

Now one could, if they are intentionally trying to create problems within the rules, argue that since Hardness is an Object trait (and never makes an effort to say otherwise), Animated Objects do not receive the benefit of their Hardness, nor do Psi-crystals; but I (and I hope others) would feel this is intentionally trying to read the rules in a troublesome fashion.

I'm not making up rules; but I did say how it can be resolved without issue; which was merely an interpretation of what the rules mean - but more specifically, an interpretation that works without circular loops or redundancy.

Hardness is not purely an object trait as it does appear on creatures but it only is defined as doing anything for objects. I have asked you to show me the rules that say how it works for creatures but you have not and in that absence I must assume that it is only defined to do anything for objects as that is all that I can find. Sure this makes hardness for creatures that are not referred to as objects of no use but that is what the rules seem to say.

This is not trying to read the rules in a troublesome fashion it is trying to read the rules in a correct fashion that just happens to be troublesome due to the way the rules were written.

I feel that you are still extending the rules as you are pulling the rules as to how creatures apply hardness out of nothing but what you think is reasonable as far as I can see. Now this may not be true but if it is not then why go through all this rigmarole instead of just telling me where the rules you are proposing are listed. Since you are not doing so I assume that they do not actually exist and so must conclude that you are still extending the rules.

Now you may have a reason for extending the rules and if I had to guess it would be so as to prove your point while avoiding circular loops, redundancy, and uselessness but extending the rules beyond what they actually say is still extending the rules no matter the reason. And as I said this is all fine and dandy but if you are going to persist in doing so I would like to know.


Edit:

Please, start a tread on hardness discussion and stop clogging the Overlooked Spells tread.

A reasonable request and as such I will speak no more on the matter in this thread. If you wish to continue the discussion please feel free make a new thread and notify me that you are doing so.

Flickerdart
2010-06-17, 04:09 PM
Hardening (SpC) is a 6th level Sorc/Wiz spell that adds hardness to an object. :smallbiggrin:

Greenish
2010-06-17, 04:12 PM
Hardening (SpC) is a 6th level Sorc/Wiz spell that adds hardness to an object. :smallbiggrin:I should assume you can also find a spell of the same name from BOEF. :smallcool:

Coidzor
2010-06-17, 04:18 PM
Hound of Doom (Complete Warrior): Potentially one of the top summons of the game due to it both using the caster's statistics (BAB, max HP, CHA to Deflection) and being only 3rd level arcane so an eternal wand of it isn't that hard to come by.

For a gish, that's pretty good, probably better than a wild cohort due to the comparative costs involved. Not too shabby for an archivist that can get it either, if I'm remembering them right. For a wizard, not so much but still potentially useful. UMDers of course... rogues love a tripping flank partner.

Ashiel
2010-06-17, 11:39 PM
Summon Undead I-III (Libris Mortis)
Summon undead is often overlooked I've found, and until just a few months ago was overlooked by my group and myself. It summons an undead (instead of animating it) with conjuration magics for 1 round per level, very much like a summon monster spell. The spells only range from level I to III, and allow you to summon things like skeletons and zombies of different sizes, as well as ghouls, and I think ghasts.

However, the real beauty of this spell is that the type of skeleton or zombies you summon are based on size. Summon Undead III can plop down an adult red dragon skeleton right out of the Monster Manual; who lasts for 5 rounds at 3rd level, is immune to fire and cold, and has an absolutely disgusting attack routine. My tabletop group (who were all playing undead-animating clerics as a themed group) dropped this one in a Red Hand of Doom campaign; which resulted in a very slaughtered Hydra. The summon could have easily soloed the beast by itself.

Essentially, you have a lot of diversity with your brutes with this spell; and Libris Mortis also has a mini monster manual of skeletons and zombies if you want to just pick and choose; but you can probably keep a few favorites noted for general situations. :smallbiggrin:

Hat-Trick
2010-06-17, 11:50 PM
I thought summon Undead didn't give you control automatically?

The Glyphstone
2010-06-18, 12:25 AM
Summon Undead I-III (Libris Mortis)


Sadly, they were reprinted, and thus superceded, in Spell Compendium. They're mediocre now, since what undead you summon have been defined for you.


I thought summon Undead didn't give you control automatically?

that's Create Undead. Summon Undead spells are like Summon Monsters, temporary, but they conjure skeletons and zombies instead mostly.

CubeB
2010-06-18, 02:41 AM
These are Warlock Invocations rather than spells, but they're still pretty cool.

When I first made my Warlock, everyone I asked told me "TAKE BALEFUL UTTERANCE DO IT DO IT DO IT!".

Baelful Utterance is cool, yes. I was going to take it until my DM pointed something out to me: Shattering all the enemies equipment will gimp the party's rewards. (Exp Goes down, lootable gear is destroyed, etc...)

So I decided to hold off on that. Instead, this was proposed to me:

Hideous Blow: As a standard action, you can make a single melee attack. If you hit, the target is affected as if struck by your eldritch blast (including any eldritch essence applied to the blast). This is in addition to any weapon damage that you deal with your attack, although you need not deal damage to trigger the eldritch blast effect.

It's a melee oriented ability for a caster class, yes. But it's by far the most damaging ability a low level warlock can take.

My Warlock takes advantage of some slightly modified tumble rules (A successful check lets you completely avoid damage, rather than lessen it) to become a literal glass cannon.

Mortimer Blake's Darkmantle Drop

The Invocations (At Level 4):
Hideous Blow
Spiderwalk
Leaps and Bounds

The Gear
Masterwork Longspear w/ Least Crystal of Arcane Steel (+1 Damage Bonus when Channeling Spells or Spell Like Abilities)

Piercer Cloak (3/Day, When attacking from higher ground, you deal an additional 1d6 damage. If charging, the bonus is 2d6)

Brute Gauntlets (3/day, you gain +2 Strength Bonus for One Round. Additional Charges may be spent for a maximum of +4 Str)

The Setup

It's really simple. All I have to do is use Spiderwalk to climb up a nearby surface (like a dungeon wall). Then I aim my spear, spend charges from my cloak and gauntlets for the bonuses, and drop.

A drop is considered a charge by my DM, and most enemies don't expect to have a warlock drop on their heads.

All together, with all of those bonuses, I can do a ton of damage. Even without the elaborate set up, I still out damage the rest of the party.

Plus the Warlock class is great for roleplay if you do it right. (My Warlock is bound to a massive Shadow Elemental, and leans more towards Addams Family than Emo-Goth. Plus, some of the strange urges the DM gives me are hilarious. He has come very close to attempting to eat a book, because it was laced with his Patron's (stolen) shadow magic.)

Ashiel
2010-06-18, 02:53 AM
Sadly, they were reprinted, and thus superceded, in Spell Compendium. They're mediocre now, since what undead you summon have been defined for you.

Heh, we don't have the Spell Compendium, so it doesn't much matter to our group. As a GM, I have plenty of fun with them using the "broken" one. :smalltongue:

Bugbeartrap
2010-06-18, 02:55 AM
My favorite overlooked spell: is Rune Delver's Fortune. Ups a sorceror's survivablity way high.

@CubeB: I can't tell if your being serious or not. You have switched the most powerful warlock ability with the weakest. I can't tell if your DM's houserules have twirled your game into something far different than my own, or if you are merely a troll stacking alter self with disguise self with polymorph.

CubeB
2010-06-18, 02:27 PM
My favorite overlooked spell: is Rune Delver's Fortune. Ups a sorceror's survivablity way high.

@CubeB: I can't tell if your being serious or not. You have switched the most powerful warlock ability with the weakest. I can't tell if your DM's houserules have twirled your game into something far different than my own, or if you are merely a troll stacking alter self with disguise self with polymorph.

Well, actually, my DM just refused to let me take Baelful Utterance.

He out right told me: "If you just use Baelful Utterance to shatter everything, you're going to get pissy rewards."

In fact, he was the one who suggested that I take Hideous Blow as opposed to Baelful Utterance.

...So it's the first one. :P

And I still have the highest damage output in the party. Admittedly, that might be because the only other caster is an Archivist...

It also might be because the Rogue spent the entirety of the first fight bleeding and couldn't sneak attack anyone. (He did one shot a Turlemoi with a sleep arrow though.)

We've got a Fighter, Psychic Warrior, Archivist, Ranger, Rogue, a Warblade who hasn't actually joined the party yet, and my Warlock. So I suppose if I went Sorc I would have a higher damage output. :P

Besides, this thread is about Overlooked spells. If you're going to call me a troll because I took an unorthodox invocation as opposed to one my GM Banned, then you're missing the point of the thread.

lsfreak
2010-06-18, 03:21 PM
He out right told me: "If you just use Baelful Utterance to shatter everything, you're going to get pissy rewards."
Obviously (though what the hell's with XP being lessened for shattering items?). But it doesn't work on magic items, and you're not going to be shattering everything, just the stuff that matters. I.e. no one can hit someone's AC, shatter his armor - if it's magical, nothing happens, but if it's not, he's a ton easier to hit. Shatter doors for easier (or more badass) entrance. Break hinges on gates, completely fray rope, or something else of that nature. Potentially shatter sections of floor beneath people, depending on how your DM rules.

Also, part of the reasoning for not liking you saying Hideous Blow is that it's downright horrible compared to Eldritch Glaive (Dragon Magic), which actually lets you make full attacks.

2xMachina
2010-06-18, 03:24 PM
Yeah, the Glaive is a much better version of the (nearly) same thing.

But, don't everyone have a +1 weapon/armor by then? Pretty cheap.

CubeB
2010-06-19, 02:10 AM
Obviously (though what the hell's with XP being lessened for shattering items?). But it doesn't work on magic items, and you're not going to be shattering everything, just the stuff that matters. I.e. no one can hit someone's AC, shatter his armor - if it's magical, nothing happens, but if it's not, he's a ton easier to hit. Shatter doors for easier (or more badass) entrance. Break hinges on gates, completely fray rope, or something else of that nature. Potentially shatter sections of floor beneath people, depending on how your DM rules.

Also, part of the reasoning for not liking you saying Hideous Blow is that it's downright horrible compared to Eldritch Glaive (Dragon Magic), which actually lets you make full attacks.

I don't think it was so much a literal CR Drop as a "If you do this, I'm going to impose an EXP Penalty on that encounter."

lsfreak
2010-06-19, 02:12 AM
I don't think it was so much a literal CR Drop as a "If you do this, I'm going to impose an EXP Penalty on that encounter."

Which makes no ****ing sense at all and goes completely against the rules as presented. Does he do the same if you charm someone into not fighting too? What about if you bypass the encounter through proper show of Intimidation and a quick Major Image?

PId6
2010-06-19, 02:16 AM
I don't think it was so much a literal CR Drop as a "If you do this, I'm going to impose an EXP Penalty on that encounter."
That's, for lack of a better term, stupid. That DM really has some control issues.

Lev
2010-07-02, 01:49 AM
Power Word Pain, Sorc/Wiz1 (Races of Dragon)
Good low level spell, 1D6/round nosave for 4D4 rounds, making the damage output 4D6 to 16D6 == 4dmg to 96 dmg, it's a little bit of a gambit as the odds of the die technically favor low more than high in this case.
Either way, makes a nice roleplaying device, especially if your DM works mainly off of RP XP.

Morithias
2010-07-02, 03:50 AM
Mending. Seriously, rip a page out of a book, copy it onto another piece of paper and put it back with mending.

Open a sealed letter to the king, read it and memorize it, then repair again. Pretty much anytime the DM gives you a mundane item, and doesn't want you to see inside it. Mending lets you see, and get away with it.

2xMachina
2010-07-02, 07:47 AM
Mending. Seriously, rip a page out of a book, copy it onto another piece of paper and put it back with mending.

Open a sealed letter to the king, read it and memorize it, then repair again. Pretty much anytime the DM gives you a mundane item, and doesn't want you to see inside it. Mending lets you see, and get away with it.

The DM will trap it next time.

Rothen
2010-07-02, 07:53 AM
The DM will trap it next time.

He'll start preparing Explosive Runes every morning.

Acanous
2010-07-02, 08:20 AM
I second "Ruin Delver's Fortune". It's a Swift action, useable whenever. Lasts until the start of your next turn, grants immunities/feats/CHA bonus to a save.

Using the rules for "Fluff customization" my Bard defined the "Single Word" listed in the spell description.

It had four letters and rhymed with Duck.

By the end of the campeign, people were searching the Spell compendium for "Power Word F***". Only the DM and myself actually knew the spell's name.

Amphetryon
2010-07-02, 08:21 AM
Cry of Ysgard, BoED p95: up to 4 CR 9 Followers with Animal Companions, for up to a year. Not too shabby for a 7th level spell.

Nero24200
2010-07-02, 08:36 AM
Lastai's Caress from the Book of Exlated Deeds. Purely because it paints an amusing picture of an Adam Sandler cleric saying "Release the awesome!" and handing a box of pop-eyes chicken over to the target.

Eldariel
2010-07-02, 09:44 AM
Animate Dread Warrior [UE] is a pretty amazing spell that gets very little press.

Magic Aura [PHB] is an easily overlooked spell that's very key to avoid yourself or your party members shining like lighthouses to Arcane Sight or similar. Especially key for stealthy types. Of course, you can also use it for false auras to generate cash or such, but its most obvious use seems to be rarely enough utilized as it stands.

Darkbolt [LoM] is one of the better attack spells in existence and yet receives barely any press. Of course, it's [Evil] which hurts but still.

Blacklight [SC] is definitely a fine way to blind everybody but you. Particularly useful for Rogue-type Wizards but overall, quite convenient against opponents without means to penetrate magical darkness. No save is dandy.

Blinding Spittle [SC] is a hilarious Druid attack spell with no save. Blinds people until they stop to wash their eyes.

False Life [PHB] is quite rarely cited for how useful it is. Hours/level Temp HP; squishy no longer!

Brilliant Blade [SC] is basically the best incarnation of Brilliant Energy ever; use against things it makes you autohit against and simply don't use it when it wouldn't be useful anyways.

Creeping Cold [SC] is very amusing with Extend Spell.

Arms of Plenty [LoM] is basically a less known Girallon's Blessing with very similar uses.

Eyes of the Oracle [DM] is basically a really bad Synchronity...which is still really good if you can have it on at key moments.

Spell Enhancer [SC] is very useful for long duration buffs.

Sonorous Hum [SC] Concentrates on a spell with Concentration for you, saving your actions for more important stuff. Extremely useful!


Just few off the top of my head.

Akal Saris
2010-07-02, 01:46 PM
This might not be a great spell(or maybe it's really well known, but I don't hear it mentioned), but the description is solid and the ability seems nice: Phantasmal Assailants(SC). It gets two saves(will for nothing, fort half), but if they fail both, let 'em eat 8 dex AND 8 wis damage. I was trying to sling this around with a sudden empower the other day. Soooo much stat damage! :smallbiggrin:

That spell 1-shotted my 8 wis barbarian in an arena game. Granted, it was a wiz vs. barbarian fight w/2 prep rounds so I expected to lose, but it was still a brutal spell to take in R1 of a fight.

Masaioh
2010-07-02, 01:55 PM
Transmute Rock to Mud and Transmute Mud to Rock. I once killed a dragon with the former by transmuting the rock that held a stalagtite to the roof of the cave we were in. It fell and crushed/impaled the dragon.

Lev
2010-07-02, 04:30 PM
He'll start preparing Explosive Runes every morning.
Amanuensis (SpC)
Why copy the page manually when a level 0 spell can do it faster and more precisely than you can while weeding out any runes?

Morithias
2010-07-02, 05:06 PM
The DM will trap it next time.

Which would be hard to justify. Seeing how the noble aristocrat that the letter is likely for would not likely have ranks in disable device. It's pretty easy to see that the DM is just doing that to railroad you than any real in-universe justification.

edit: Plus how the hell do you trap a letter?

Dusk Eclipse
2010-07-02, 05:09 PM
edit: Plus how the hell do you trap a letter?

I can think of a (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sepiasnakesigil.htm) few (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiverunes.htm) ways (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/firetrap.htm)

Note, bad idea if used to protect an important document if the reciever doesn't know about the traps, but on a decoy they seem good idea.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-02, 06:05 PM
Amanuensis (SpC)
Why copy the page manually when a level 0 spell can do it faster and more precisely than you can while weeding out any runes?


The spell triggers writing-based magic traps in the material being copied.

No, can't cantrip your way out of it.

2xMachina
2010-07-02, 09:35 PM
You know, it could be like a code.

After the 1st paragraph, there is a explosive runes.

They have been notified, and have gotten used to skipping the 2nd paragraph entirely, going to the 3rd.

Anyone not knowing the trick to reading it will destroy the letter, and take force damage.

Lev
2010-07-02, 09:47 PM
No, can't cantrip your way out of it.
Explosive Runes: Close Enough to Read
Sep Snake Sig: Line of Sight
Fire Trap: 5' AoE

Explosive Runes and Sep Snake are both set off by amanuensis but their ranges are both more limited than it, Amanuensis has a 25' range even at CL1 where as explosive runes and sep can easily be avoided that way.

Fire Trap works a bit differently, but all the same-- 10' pole with a hook on it, prestidigitation, mage hand, ect.

2xMachina
2010-07-02, 11:42 PM
But you better be able to explain how you destroyed the message.

gorfnab
2010-07-03, 12:21 AM
Regal Procession(SpC) Why sell one horse when you can sell dozens?

Also good for sinking ships, creating distractions, and creating mobile blockades.

Lev
2010-07-03, 12:41 AM
But you better be able to explain how you destroyed the message.
Fire trap and snake sig don't destroy the trap but they should show that the trap is disarmed if the reader recognizes the trap, explosive runes is your only worry in the 3 trap scenario and even then you could try mending... it's an explosion and paper has very little inertia, catches wind and is pretty flexible and seeing as there's no shrapnel it can't really rip it other than air pressure which should be applied evenly right?

If it was a message and the message was a trap then it's possible that you will be thanked for disarming it, but the truth is that it exploded while in your possession and if mending doesn't repair it you could just have your charismatic companion explain to the recipient that it was magically trapped and could have killed him.
Now you really only have one fault here, that's the scenario if the opener was fully aware of the trap seeing as if he wasn't then there's no way of knowing that the trigger for the trap was to open it, or that you had opened it seeing as NPC's don't have knowledge of game rules, or to quote family guy "You're not a pilot, I know every pilot in the world!"
In the case that you aren't believed since the recipient knew of the trap your charismatic companion could then go onto to recite a pre-made and practiced backup story on how you passed through a weird field or something and it exploded then inciting a bluff check to pull it off, but I bet it would have a lowered DC through practicing the story with your party and then adding some social buffs pre-meeting.

I mean, yes it can be bad if you do it in a library when other people are there and they hear BOOM and come over and you have to cover on the spot, but generally this is a pretty contained incidence.