Is this spell balanced?

[Johanas]

This is a spell a player sprung on me last night. The party is first level, he is playing a race with a racial bonus to Intimidate, an 18 Cha, and a rank in Intimidate, which, since it's Pathfinder, also gets him a +3 bonus. I knew he would have a decent Intimidate, but this is ridiculous. It's a Midnight spell, from the campaign setting directly. Of course it was a supplement book I've never heard of, but that's another issue. It occurs to me this spell might be unbalanced anyway, since there are so few spells that give bonuses to skills at first level. This one gives +10 OR can be used as a fear effect. Which should put it right around level 2 or 3. Thoughts?



Woeful Speech

Enchantment (Evil, Mind-Affecting)
Level: Cha 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets: Any number of targets, no two of which may be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration: Up to 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: No

By speaking or singing, you shake the subjects with a demoralizing display, provided they can hear you. Subjects are shaken and suffer an additional -2 penalty against fear effects so long as you can and do speak, and do not cast any spell except enchantment spells that further demoralize the subjects of their allies.

You can use this spell to influence NPC actions, with a +10 bonus on your Intimidation check.

Woeful speech counters and dispels joyful speech.

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

It seems a little strong for 1st level to me. . . maybe a +5, scaling up at higher levels would be okay. . .

[arguskos]

Well, it's [Evil] and [Mind-affecting], both of which sting it somewhat. However, it's also a +10 to Intimidate. I'd call it level 2, probably more like level 3 due to being possibly abusive ala glibness. Though, if your player didn't ask you about it first, that's kinda crappy on his part. :smallyuk:

[Tyndmyr]

It's only intimidate. So, he built his character around intimidating others. How is this a problem?

So now, he blows an action and a spell. Then, on his next turn(assuming this is in combat), he intimidates someone.

That's a lotta time wasted for a meh bonus over them.

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

(i am a player in the group)

well. . he was of the impression that an intimidated person obeys you completely. . . and argued with the GM when that wasn't the case

[Johanas]

I don't mind the Intimidate, except he's a barbarian with necromancy. This is sorta unforeseen, since he specifically mentioned he has little to no social skills, and won't be putting hardly any more ranks in Intimidate. And the combat part isn't as much of an issue, he mentioned he's going to be using this OUT of combat too, which WILL be a problem.

[arguskos]

(i am a player in the group)

well. . he was of the impression that an intimidated person obeys you completely. . . and argued with the GM when that wasn't the case
That's an issue with the player, not the spell. Fix that first.


I don't mind the Intimidate, except he's a barbarian with necromancy. This is sorta unforeseen, since he specifically mentioned he has little to no social skills, and won't be putting hardly any more ranks in Intimidate. And the combat part isn't as much of an issue, he mentioned he's going to be using this OUT of combat too, which WILL be a problem.
...how does he actually have this spell, then? :smallconfused:

Also, Tyndmyr, Intimidate is a brutally powerful combat ender of an ability. Intimidate boosting is pretty effective if you can get them to cowering (not that hard). :smallwink:

[jiriku]

In my mind, the ability to 1. affect multiple targets 2. at Medium range 3. with a duration likely to last for the entire battle flags this spell as level 3+. The addition of the completely different effect (+10 untyped to intimidate) pushes this much closer to a level 4 spell.

Further, the spell just looks badly designed to me. It disallows spell resistance, even though the effect is obviously a direct magical enchantment on the subjects which should allow spell resistance. It has the evil descriptor, despite involving no effects associated with evil behavior. It lacks the sonic or language-dependent descriptors, even though it requires you to speak and the targets to hear you. It grants you a bonus to your own rolls, despite being cast on someone else (it should more properly inflict a -10 on the target's attempts to resist Intimidate). Its drawbacks are odd, illogical and seem tailored to look serious while actually not crimping the caster's style while he's using his preferred tactic.

My instinct would be to disallow the spell completely in its current form. It needs revision before you should accept it. I'd suggest you consider the following:

allows spell resistance,
proper descriptors,
possibly reduced range or number of targets,
clear the discrepancy involved in the "targets you/grants bonuses to me" thing
require concentration to sustain rather than the weird speech+refrain from non-enchantments requirement)

The resulting spell would most likely be a 3rd-level spell or 4th level if the drawbacks are removed and the spell is not toned down. For reference, compare it to rage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rage.htm), deep slumber (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deepSlumber.htm), and crushing despair (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/crushingDespair.htm), which are similar in scope and effect.

[aeauseth]

I think it is WAY too strong for a 1st level spell. Compare with Charm Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm) and Fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fear.htm).


Change RANGE to be CLOSE.
Charge TARGET to be one target.
Not sure if EVIL is really necessary. Would think "Necromancy [Fear, Mind-Affecting]"
SR should be YES.
You could increase duration to hours/level, although the way intimidate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm) works I'm not sure if it really matters.
For flavor you might apply -5 penalty to Will save if target is losing battle, say at 50% HP due to damaged caused by caster and/or party?
Reading spell would suggest DURATION should be CONCENTRATION (not to exceed 1 round/level).


What is "Cha 1"? If it is like a paladin spell progression then I may have been too harsh in my assessment.

[sonofzeal]

Compared to Conceal Thoughts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/concealThoughts.htm), it looks reasonable. But it's still on the upper end of what's acceptable for a 1st level spell, and might not fit into all campaigns. DM's call, really.

[Tyndmyr]

(i am a player in the group)

well. . he was of the impression that an intimidated person obeys you completely. . . and argued with the GM when that wasn't the case

Well, that'd be the problem. Intimidate is not dominate. He needs to reread the effects of intimidate then, clearly.

[mcl01]

Questions abound:
How is he a Barbarian with necromancy spells?
What does "Cha 1" mean in the spell description?

Besides that, I would say it's quite strong, but not game-breaking unbalanced: Compare to Cause Fear, which is Frightened for 1d4 rounds or shaken for 1 round for 1 enemy. This shakens a lot of enemies for CL rounds, with a will save to negate.

I'd say, limit it to 1 enemy, and it'll be completely fine.

Also, note the duration, 1 round/level. At level 1, he's shaken-ing possibly every enemy with a will-save for 1 round. Not that big of a deal. Later on, it'll be for CL rounds. If he uses it to buff his intimidate, he's using a standard action so he can use ANOTHER standard action later on to shaken all enemies for 1 round.

Also, since intimidation in a non-combat sense takes a full minute, just rule he needs to be at least CL 10th for him to intimidate NPCs with it.

I think the problem is with the character - not the spell.

[Tyndmyr]

Questions abound:
How is he a Barbarian with necromancy spells?

This is also an excellent point. Especially at level one.

[Malakar]

Yeah, I don't know where this "too powerful" train comes in.

Level 1 spells have the effect "Instantly take away all actions and render coup de grace able".

Sleep is an area radius medium range spell that instantly defeats up to 5 enemies at level 1. Sleep has the drawback of slightly smaller area and 1 round casting time, but every single person who said "concentration" needs to seriously rethink their opinion.

The spell grants a bonus to a skill that requires a standard action to use, so concentration immediately makes that aspect of the spell cease to exist. And the effect is to shaken for however long. Seriously. Shaken. Absolutely, he's going to use the area shaken to then frighten people with a standard action intimidate.

But I think that spending two standard actions to frighten one enemy who fails a will save and shaken a few others is well within the realm of reasonable spells.

Now, the spell is poorly written, that's for sure, but anyone who thinks making a group of people shaken is a level 4 spell needs to reread sleep.

[Johanas]

K, first off, Midnight uses a feat-based spell system for spellcasting. Cha is the Channeler, the only spellcasting class in the system. No clerics, no wizards. Fighters, barbarians, rogues etc. are the same. It's Pathfinder too, btw. He is a Barbarian 1, who took the Magecraft feat, which means he gets one first level spell. He chose the one in question. It uses a point casting system similar to Psionics.
Also, he is casting the spell for the bonus to his Intimidate checks, which means no save is involved. It's just a bonus to his checks. I might rework it to a failed save means that they are SUBJECT to the additional +10, otherwise he's just using it as a buff.

[Johanas]

Basically the system allows you to take spellcasting feats to have a small number of spells known, and never need to multiclass. If you're a straight Channeler, you get more spells known and extra spell energy, but anyone could potentially be a spellcaster. Including a first level human barbarian.

Channeler is a standard 20 level base class with 9 spell levels. A first level Channeler spell is equivalent to a first level wizard/sorcerer/cleric spell.

[Malakar]

Also, he is casting the spell for the bonus to his Intimidate checks, which means no save is involved. It's just a bonus to his checks. I might rework it to a failed save means that they are SUBJECT to the additional +10, otherwise he's just using it as a buff.

So he's not actually using the spell in combat at all and all he's doing is getting a +10 to intimidate?

And why is this a problem? So he autowins intimidate checks to make people shaken and he's using his feats to make him a party face via intimidate.

That is so incredibly far from broken I'm confused what the problem is.

[Boci]

So he's not actually using the spell in combat at all and all he's doing is getting a +10 to intimidate?

And why is this a problem? So he autowins intimidate checks to make people shaken and he's using his feats to make him a party face via intimidate.

That is so incredibly far from broken I'm confused what the problem is.


INTIMIDATE (CHA)
Check: You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile)..

Emphasis mine. I could see that being a problem in certain games.

[DragoonWraith]

Using the social rules as written itself leads to a problem, not this spell.

[jiriku]

Yeah, I don't know where this "too powerful" train comes in.

Now, the spell is poorly written, that's for sure, but anyone who thinks making a group of people shaken is a level 4 spell needs to reread sleep.

I happen to be the person you're referring to. So, I started out by re-reading sleep. A couple of things jumped out at me. Sleep affects a maximum of 4 hit dice worth of creatures. It cannot defeat five enemies unless they have 1/2 or fewer hit dice each. Generally, it becomes useless when opponents grow beyond the CR 1-3 range. It affects weaker creatures first, so in a mixed group, the caster does not have precise control over who is affected. Sleep is also widely considered to be one of the two most powerful 1st-level arcane spells in the game. The DMG specifically recommends against balancing new spells against the most powerful spells of a given level.

Now, I wanted to give your position a fair hearing, so I also looked at scare, a 2nd level spell. Scare inflicts the frightened condition, which is better than shaken. However, it affects 1/3 as many creatures, none of which can have more than 5 hit dice. Granted, it has no maintenance restriction. That's a big plus.

Looking at woeful speech, I see that it affects three times as many creatures as scare, over a larger area than sleep. It has no hit die cap, meaning it is useful even into levels 5-10, the range at which sleep and scare become useless. Moreover, it offers a substantial skill bonus, making it a dual-purpose spell, and the skill bonus is usable against any creature, even intelligent undead or living constructs. Sleep and scare only affect living creatures. It does not offer spell resistance. It lacks a material component, and can therefore be used more easily in a grapple.

I looked for an equivalent to woeful speech, and the closest I could find was crushing despair:

Crushing Despair
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 30 ft.
Area: Cone-shaped burst
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

An invisible cone of despair causes great sadness in the subjects. Each affected creature takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, ability checks, skill checks, and weapon damage rolls.

Crushing despair has pitiful range, and affects targets indescriminately (woeful speech allows you to omit allies). It also allow spell resistance, and is not dual-threat. In its favor, however, it's a better debuff, because its affect is a bit broader and doesn't carry the fear descriptor. I'll concede that it's not well-regarded, as 4th-level spells go, but it is similar to the spell in question.

I also looked at glibness, which provides a comparable, although much larger, skill benefit. Glibness is 3rd level for bards and beguilers (although bards get that when full-casters are getting their 4th level spells.

So, I'm seeing a flexible dual-purpose spell that has more applicability and fewer targetting restrictions than two comparable 1st-level spells, and incorporates pieces of two 4th(ish)-level spells, although it has features that they lack. A recommendation of 3rd level for woeful speech still seems quite reasonable, verging on 4th if its restrictions are removed without nerfing its power.

And really, from a meta perspective, spells are some of the most powerful tools in the game, and countless campaigns have been killed by overpowered or ill-considered homebrew. Doesn't it make sense to play it safe?

[Boci]

Using the social rules as written itself leads to a problem, not this spell.

Fair point.

[Johanas]

So he's not actually using the spell in combat at all and all he's doing is getting a +10 to intimidate?

And why is this a problem? So he autowins intimidate checks to make people shaken and he's using his feats to make him a party face via intimidate.

That is so incredibly far from broken I'm confused what the problem is.

The player is not what this thread is about. That's just backstory. I am asking for the playgrounds thoughts on a spell's balance.

Boci also got it in one. The other real problem is how far the word "Friendly" will take you.

[Johanas]

I happen to be the person you're referring to. So, I started out by re-reading sleep. A couple of things jumped out at me. Sleep affects a maximum of 4 hit dice worth of creatures. It cannot defeat five enemies unless they have 1/2 or fewer hit dice each. Generally, it becomes useless when opponents grow beyond the CR 1-3 range. It affects weaker creatures first, so in a mixed group, the caster does not have precise control over who is affected. Sleep is also widely considered to be one of the two most powerful 1st-level arcane spells in the game. The DMG specifically recommends against balancing new spells against the most powerful spells of a given level.

Now, I wanted to give your position a fair hearing, so I also looked at scare, a 2nd level spell. Scare inflicts the frightened condition, which is better than shaken. However, it affects 1/3 as many creatures, none of which can have more than 5 hit dice. Granted, it has no maintenance restriction. That's a big plus.

Looking at woeful speech, I see that it affects three times as many creatures as scare, over a larger area than sleep. It has no hit die cap, meaning it is useful even into levels 5-10, the range at which sleep and scare become useless. Moreover, it offers a substantial skill bonus, making it a dual-purpose spell, and the skill bonus is usable against any creature, even intelligent undead or living constructs. Sleep and scare only affect living creatures. It does not offer spell resistance. It lacks a material component, and can therefore be used more easily in a grapple.

I looked for an equivalent to woeful speech, and the closest I could find was crushing despair:


Crushing despair has pitiful range, and affects targets indescriminately (woeful speech allows you to omit allies). It also allow spell resistance, and is not dual-threat. In its favor, however, it's a better debuff, because its affect is a bit broader and doesn't carry the fear descriptor. I'll concede that it's not well-regarded, as 4th-level spells go, but it is similar to the spell in question.

I also looked at glibness, which provides a comparable, although much larger, skill benefit. Glibness is 3rd level for bards and beguilers (although bards get that when full-casters are getting their 4th level spells.

So, I'm seeing a flexible dual-purpose spell that has more applicability and fewer targetting restrictions than two comparable 1st-level spells, and incorporates pieces of two 4th(ish)-level spells, although it has features that they lack. A recommendation of 3rd level for woeful speech still seems quite reasonable, verging on 4th if its restrictions are removed without nerfing its power.

And really, from a meta perspective, spells are some of the most powerful tools in the game, and countless campaigns have been killed by overpowered or ill-considered homebrew. Doesn't it make sense to play it safe?

Thanks you so much Jiriku, that is precisely the input I was looking for. Thanks to all of you, btw, this has been quite informative.

[Johanas]

Just as a side note, here's Joyful Speech, the counterpart to our Woeful Speech:

Joyful Speech

Enchantment [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]
Level: Cha 1
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./levels)
Targets: Any number of targets, no two of which may be more then 30 ft. apart
Duration: Up to 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: No

By speaking or singing, you rally or otherwise bolster the subjects, provided they can hear you. The attitudes of unfriendly, indifferent, and friendly NPCs automatically improve by one step (from indifferent to friendly, for example). Subjects that are shaken (such as from doom) are unshaken. Subjects gain a +4 morale bonus against fear effects so long as they can hear you. This spell is maintained each round so long as you can and do speak, and do not cast any other spells except enchantment spells that further support the subjects or allies.

You can use this spell to appease two parties in a negotiation, with a +10 bonus to your Diplomacy check.

This spell amplifies genuine sentiment, making it clear even without skillful poetics. If used to bluff, betray, or trick the targets, the spell automatically fails.

Joyful speech counters and dispels woeful speech.

.

.

.

Even one LESS component for the spell.

[Lysander]

Wouldn't his effective caster always be 1 since he's not a spellcaster? Which would mean that this spell would have a very small chance of success against any enemy powerful enough that it would be useful, especially later on? Or does it match his character level? I don't know these rules.

[Ranos]

Also, he is casting the spell for the bonus to his Intimidate checks, which means no save is involved. It's just a bonus to his checks. I might rework it to a failed save means that they are SUBJECT to the additional +10, otherwise he's just using it as a buff.

That is not the case. Notice that part where it says "Saving Throw: Will negates" ? It means exactly that.

[Johanas]

Wouldn't his effective caster always be 1 since he's not a spellcaster? Which would mean that this spell would have a very small chance of success against any enemy powerful enough that it would be useful, especially later on? Or does it match his character level? I don't know these rules.

Good point, and I apologize for not addressing that. A character with the Magecraft and Spellcasting feats has a caster level equal to their character level. Kind of a neat idea, it allows even melee characters to have magic if they so choose, without BAB loss.

[Lysander]

It's not really that powerful when you consider the limitations of intimidate. First off, I noticed that this spell does not make intimidate more powerful in combat. Why? Because all intimidate can do in combat as a one round action is shake people. Since this spell already leaves the subject shaken there is no benefit to intimidating them again.

Intimidating someone to change their attitude requires one minute of interaction:


Action
Varies. Changing another’s behavior requires 1 minute of interaction. Intimidating an opponent in combat is a standard action.

So in combat you can't change an enemy's behavior unless you spend 10 standard actions threatening them!

Now out of combat it might have some use as a way of persuading people to help you. But it only makes the target take "friendly" actions which is just "chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate". Basically, they'll do what you say as long as there's no significant risk or cost to themselves.That's not mind control by any stretch of the imagination.

And compared to glibness it's terrible. With glibness you can make people believe, possibly forever, anything you want. This just makes people hesitant to cross you for few minutes, then transforms them into your enemy.

[Tyndmyr]

Emphasis mine. I could see that being a problem in certain games.

Yeah, but you ignored the rest. Like, what it actually does for you: "That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated."

That's not really broken. Handy in an emergency, but not broken. Especially when you consider the aftereffects. "After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).."

So, even if the effect DOES work on everyone in the area(unlikely), it's not an overpowered effect, as it comes with the built in disadvantages of trying to get your way by bullying people around.

But hey, it's not like you'll listen to me. You criticized Malakar as talking about the player, not the spell, but praised Boci as "getting it". They were talking to each other, about the same topic. So...you're looking for an excuse to ban the spell.

[Boci]

That is not the case. Notice that part where it says "Saving Throw: Will negates" ? It means exactly that.

Negates what? His bonus to intimidate? How? I'm pretty sure there is no save against a buff, just the debuff aspect of the spell.


It's not really that powerful when you consider the limitations of intimidate. First off, I noticed that this spell does not make intimidate more powerful in combat. Why? Because all intimidate can do in combat as a one round action is shake people. Since this spell already leaves the subject shaken there is no benefit to intimidating them again.

By default it can shaken enemies. With the right build/other fear affect from the party it can get a lot worse.


So in combat you can't change an enemy's behavior unless you spend 10 standard actions threatening them!

Good catch on the time thing. So technically he would need caster level 10 before he can use it to intimidate someone out of combat. I missed that.


Yeah, but you ignored the rest. Like, what it actually does for you: "That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated."

That's not really broken.

No, but I can see it being problomatic in certain games, and if you use it against someone who is hostile and you were going to kill anyway there is no disadvantage.

[Tyndmyr]

No, but I can see it being problomatic in certain games, and if you use it against someone who is hostile and you were going to kill anyway there is no disadvantage.

As is the case with...every other debuff. Most of which are more effective than two rounds for a possible shaken. That's a waste of combat time.


And yes, will negates means that a successful save negates EVERYTHING. Partial saves are noted differently.

[Boci]

As is the case with...every other debuff. Most of which are more effective than two rounds for a possible shaken. That's a waste of combat time.

HUh? I'm talking about using it out of combat.


And yes, will negates means that a successful save negates EVERYTHING. Partial saves are noted differently.

"You can use this spell to influence NPC actions, with a +10 bonus on your Intimidation check."

To me that implies that if you use this function of the spell, there is no save since it affects only the caster. It would be like claiming a saving throw against a gish's bullstrength.

[Malakar]

Emphasis mine. I could see that being a problem in certain games.

My emphasis would be on the fact that he can't use the spell for that, as was established already before I ever posted, by another poster pointing out that this actions takes 10 consecutive standard actions.


Now, I wanted to give your position a fair hearing, so I also looked at scare, a 2nd level spell. Scare inflicts the frightened condition, which is better than shaken. However, it affects 1/3 as many creatures, none of which can have more than 5 hit dice. Granted, it has no maintenance restriction. That's a big plus.

I'm sorry what? Why are you even comparing frighten to shaken. Shaken provides a minor penalty, frighten instantly wins a combat.


Looking at woeful speech, I see that it affects three times as many creatures as scare, over a larger area than sleep. It has no hit die cap, meaning it is useful even into levels 5-10, the range at which sleep and scare become useless. Moreover, it offers a substantial skill bonus, making it a dual-purpose spell, and the skill bonus is usable against any creature, even intelligent undead or living constructs. Sleep and scare only affect living creatures. It does not offer spell resistance. It lacks a material component, and can therefore be used more easily in a grapple.

?? Yes, you can Shaken more enemies than you can frighten, because Shaken is a minor penalty, and frighten wins combats. And once again, it's a +10 to a skill for 1 round per level, and the skill requires 10 rounds to use. It's useless. The only thing it lets them do is intimidate in combat.


I looked for an equivalent to woeful speech, and the closest I could find was crushing despair:

It's equivalent in the since that I would never waste a second of my time casting it at level 4 (or level 3), but let's try fear: It panics people for rounds on a failed save, and even on a successful one, it shakens them.

That's how bad shaken is, that you can no save shaken people with level 3 and 4 spells, and it's not even a powerful often used spell.



I also looked at glibness, which provides a comparable, although much larger, skill benefit. Glibness is 3rd level for bards and beguilers (although bards get that when full-casters are getting their 4th level spells.

A CL 10 Bard casting Glibness gains a +30 to bluff for 100minutes, or 600 rounds. Since Bluffing is a full round action, he can gain that bonus on 600 skill checks.

A level 10 character casting Woeful Speech gains a +10 to intimidate, which can be used outside of combat once. He gets a +10 to one skill check.

One of those is very useful and powerful. The other is not even worth a 0th level spell.


So, I'm seeing a flexible dual-purpose spell that has more applicability and fewer targetting restrictions than two comparable 1st-level spells, and incorporates pieces of two 4th(ish)-level spells, although it has features that they lack. A recommendation of 3rd level for woeful speech still seems quite reasonable, verging on 4th if its restrictions are removed without nerfing its power.

I'm seeing a single purpose completely inflexible spell that posseses the following qualities:

1) Shakens those that fail a save in a large area.
2) Allows the character to use their standard actions in the next few rounds to frighten one enemy per round that failed their save on the first effect.

That's it.


And really, from a meta perspective, spells are some of the most powerful tools in the game, and countless campaigns have been killed by overpowered or ill-considered homebrew. Doesn't it make sense to play it safe?

From a meta perspective, shouldn't we evaluate spells (in this case, spells that are not homebrew) based on what they actually do to the game, instead of based on comparing them to five different spells none of which are like them at all, and trying to hash a claim that they are level X that has nothing to do with their in game effect?

[Johanas]

But hey, it's not like you'll listen to me. You criticized Malakar as talking about the player, not the spell, but praised Boci as "getting it". They were talking to each other, about the same topic. So...you're looking for an excuse to ban the spell.

I wasn't attacking anyone, I just wantd the thread to stay on topic. I am actually going to let him KEEP the spell, after modifying it. Please don't feel offended. I just wanted a comparison from the playground. If I wanted to ban the spell, I would. I AM the one running the game. Instead, I decided to make it scaling with caster level, like Jump.

[Johanas]

A CL 10 Bard casting Glibness gains a +30 to bluff for 100minutes, or 600 rounds. Since Bluffing is a full round action, he can gain that bonus on 600 skill checks.

A level 10 character casting Woeful Speech gains a +10 to intimidate, which can be used outside of combat once. He gets a +10 to one skill check.

One of those is very useful and powerful. The other is not even worth a 0th level spell.

Actually, Woeful Speech is a round/level. That makes it last for 10 rounds at level 10. Which is enough time for 10 skill checks, or one use of the forced friendly version of Intimidate, assuming he does nothing else. And assuming out of combat, of course.

My real issue with the spell is it's versatility. It just seems that a first level spell should only do one or the other.

Edit: Just so everyone knows, what I first compared this to, was the spells Cause Fear, Jump, and 2 Utterances, namely Universal Aptitude, and Hidden Truth. Universal Aptitude (1st level utterance) is +5 to one skill check on a targeted ally, and Hidden Truth (2nd level utterance) is +10 to one Knowledge or Bluff check. Universal is +5 to any, but the 2nd level is +10. Like Woeful Speech.

However, I appreciate the time you've taken on this thread. It's nice to see both sides of a debate, I feel I can make a better educated ruling for my game.

[Lysander]

HUh? I'm talking about using it out of combat.



"You can use this spell to influence NPC actions, with a +10 bonus on your Intimidation check."

To me that implies that if you use this function of the spell, there is no save since it affects only the caster. It would be like claiming a saving throw against a gish's bullstrength.

I think the spell's logic is that anyone affected by the spell finds your voice scary, so it's a lot easier to intimidate them. However if they make their saving throw they don't find your voice scary so there would be no bonus.

[Johanas]

I think the spell's logic is that anyone affected by the spell finds your voice scary, so it's a lot easier to intimidate them. However if they make their saving throw they don't find your voice scary so there would be no bonus.

Problem is, the wording can go either way. I had initally said that the +10 bonus had no save, since it was a buff, but I have been thinking I may have to actually have the save effect the +10. You may very well be right Lysander, it's just a terrible wording.

[jiriku]

@ Malakar: Chill, dude. You're going to bust a vein in your forehead or something.

@ Johanas: A useful thing to do might be to talk more with the player about what he expects to be able to accomplish with the spell. For example, is he under the impression that he can use the spell to Intimidate outside of combat prior to level 10? Are you inclined to create a houserule allowing him to attempt a rushed Intimidate as a full-round action with a -10 penalty (as one can do with Diplomacy)?

Joyful noise displays similar problems. It's considerably broader in effect and more versatile than remove fear, a comparable 1st level spell, although its duration is shorter and its effects are individually less strong. It doesn't offer spell resistance, which it should (although as a harmless spell that's not really significant). It should have a range of personal when used to acquire a bonus to Diplomacy checks. Note that Diplomacy explicitly can be used as full-round action, and joyful noise would negate the -10 penalty for doing so. That's useful - you can try to stop a combat with a full-round Diplomacy check, or attempt to sway imminently hostile characters who are about to attack or sound the alarm (such as guards who just caught you doing something you shouldn't have been doing).

[Ranos]

You're not supposed to be casting it on yourself. Otherwise, it'd have (harmless) appended to the save, and it wouldn't be [Mind-affecting]. You cast it on an npc, and you get a +10 to intimidate him for the duration.

Anyway, it's not a very powerful spell, as everyone before me has already explained.

[Johanas]

[B]@ Johanas: A useful thing to do might be to talk more with the player about what he expects to be able to accomplish with the spell. For example, is he under the impression that he can use the spell to Intimidate outside of combat prior to level 10? Are you inclined to create a houserule allowing him to attempt a rushed Intimidate as a full-round action with a -10 penalty (as one can do with Diplomacy)?

Smart. I talked to him late last night, and he said he initially took the spell not realizing he needed a minute to persuade people to friendly, and was of the assumption the spell did NOT allow the save for the buff. Which, again, is kind of a gray area. He's not going for a build like Shneeky's Intimdating Samurai build, he's actually going Binder for level 2 on. So not really a power level issue, as Binder is definitely not a Tier 1 class. I hadn't considered the rushed Intimidate check, I will talk to him and see if that is something he may be interested in.

[Boci]

I think the spell's logic is that anyone affected by the spell finds your voice scary, so it's a lot easier to intimidate them. However if they make their saving throw they don't find your voice scary so there would be no bonus.

Yes but your not targetted by the spell if it is used in that way. Can I get a saving throw to avoid the increased initimidate modifier from someone under the affect of eagle's splendor?

[Tinydwarfman]

Personally I think this is just badly designed. ANY number of targets? With a medium range? WTF? I would mark this as 3rd level, but if you actually made the AoE something like a 30 ft burst and implemented some of the other changes suggested, it might be 2nd. Crushing despair is really bad, so you shouldn't compare it to that.

[Malakar]

Actually, Woeful Speech is a round/level. That makes it last for 10 rounds at level 10. Which is enough time for 10 skill checks, or one use of the forced friendly version of Intimidate, assuming he does nothing else. And assuming out of combat, of course.

Yes, and my point is that +10 to ten skill checks in combat that require a standard action to perform and have an effect of taking away one single opponents action for one round is so utterly unimpressive that it actually weakens the character to do that instead of punching people in the face or casting spells.

So yes, he can either successfully intimidate one person, or he can cast the spell Daze at will for 10 rounds. The spell Daze is a cantrip.


@ Malakar: Chill, dude. You're going to bust a vein in your forehead or something.

Nothing that I said in any way indicated any kind of anger. Why are you specifically attempting to attack me personally by asserting that I am overly emotional instead of addressing my arguments?

[Tyndmyr]

Yes but your not targetted by the spell if it is used in that way. Can I get a saving throw to avoid the increased initimidate modifier from someone under the affect of eagle's splendor?

No. Because the spell works differently. You can tell, by reading it.

Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)

Obviously, it's cast on you or an ally, not on hostiles.

Compare to Woeful speech:

Saving Throw: Will negates

See? Not harmless. It's targetting adversaries, not friendlies. It describes it's negative effects as happening to it's "subjects". Ie, targets.

So, the spell says it targets adversaries, and gives a saving throw. Unless there is a SPECIFIC exception, they get the saving throw.


Tiny, compare the effect, not just the range. This ain't a fireball, here.

[Malakar]

Personally I think this is just badly designed. ANY number of targets? With a medium range? WTF? I would mark this as 3rd level, but if you actually made the AoE something like a 30 ft burst and implemented some of the other changes suggested, it might be 2nd. Crushing despair is really bad, so you shouldn't compare it to that.

Um... Did you read the spell's range? "Any number or targets, no two of which can be more than 30ft apart."

That's similar to the wording used by Chain Lightning. It effectively means that it's a 30ft spread, except that you can choose to not affect allies. Which for a fear based enchantment makes sense.

[Boci]

No. Because the spell works differently. You can tell, by reading it.

Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)

Obviously, it's cast on you or an ally, not on hostiles.

But you can still save against an affect even if its harmless.


See? Not harmless. It's targetting adversaries, not friendlies. It describes it's negative effects as happening to it's "subjects". Ie, targets.

Yes, then in a new paragraph talks about a different use for the spell.

In conlusion, I am pretty sure this is one of those gray areas which the DM will have to make a ruleing on.

[Tyndmyr]

But you can still save against an affect even if its harmless.

Thats not the point. It's targetting you or a friendly. That's how they phrase spells that are meant to target such.


Yes, then in a new paragraph talks about a different use for the spell.

In conlusion, I am pretty sure this is one of those gray areas which the DM will have to make a ruleing on.

The spell has multiple uses, yes. But the save area is written so that the subjects get a save, and no use has an exception to that. So...all uses grant the target a save.

[Another_Poet]

If you rule it properly it shouldn't be a problem.

For in-combat use, will save negates against a first level spell from a character who is not built as a caster. Okay, so it fails more than half the time. Many creatures are immune. Enemies traveling with a paladin are immune. Enemies who can't hear him are immune (I assume). If he can't speak the spell fails. If he stops woefully speaking at any time, such as to say something tactical to an ally, the spell ends. It's... weak.

Your main concern is out of combat. Okay so you have a barbarian who walks into a crowded market square and goes up to a weapon vendor. He then begins to loudly intone an evil enchantment which everyone can see/hear is a clear attempt to charm the vendor. About half the people in the square become terrified and flee down the street. Everyone else watches as the barbarian now threatens the life of the vendor in order to get his way. The vendor hands over his very best item for sale, a Masterwork longsword. Wooooooooooo. Wow that barbarian is living large now!

Meanwhile the constable (or local lord, or thieves guild, or all three) see half the town running in terror. They hear that a barbarian is casting black magic and threatening the lives of citizens in the square. The barbarian has no social skills to talk his way out. A pile of guards (or thieves to scare off this new rival) show up and seize the barbarian, killing him if he resists.

I'd just warn the player of the above scenario and tell him that in your world every town has law enforcement capable of handling a typical adventurer. If he still goes around casting evil spells on townspeople then his character (and this problem) will be short lived.

ap

[Malakar]

Well AP, the thing is, he can't actually use the black words to charm the vendor at all until level 10.

At which point... um?

Because at every point before that, the ten rounds of talking to the vendor doesn't give him time to do it during the spell.

No in fact, the situation you described would never happen, because the woeful words are focused on specific targets, so no one else gets the creepy vibe, they just hear him chanting some strange magic they don't understand because they do not have spellcraft.

[Boci]

Thats not the point. It's targetting you or a friendly. That's how they phrase spells that are meant to target such.

Yes, and the spell woeful words can give you a +10 bonus on intimidations checks. Thats affecting the casting, so there should not be a saving throw.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, and the spell woeful words can give you a +10 bonus on intimidations checks. Thats affecting the casting, so there should not be a saving throw.

You mean caster.

Just because it affects the caster doesn't mean you get to throw out the part about saving throws. It affects you and the other people. In an opposed roll. It says it has a saving throw. It doesn't target you.

We've established already that using it out of combat is worthless at level 10, and cannot be done before then.

We've also established that the save sucks, because he's a barbarian. Or he's a really sucky barbarian.

We've also established that in combat, burning two rounds to intimidate someone is a waste of time.

So no, it's not overpowered. At all. Even if it didn't have a save for the skill bonus.

[Boci]

Just because it affects the caster doesn't mean you get to throw out the part about saving throws.

IMO it does. I'm trying to think of another spell that is both a debuff and a buff to see how thatr is worded for comparison.

[Zovc]

Add this,

"A creature whose type is different from the caster’s receives a +4 bonus on its saving throw, because humor doesn’t “translate” well." (See Hideous Laughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hideouslaughter.htm).)

And it becomes a lot more reasonable as a level 1 spell.

Edit: Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking suggesting this. Your spell would have to give you a bonus to intimidating a target for my suggestion to mean anything.

[Lysander]

Yes, and the spell woeful words can give you a +10 bonus on intimidations checks. Thats affecting the casting, so there should not be a saving throw.

I don't really understand your logic though. If you pass a spell's saving throw that generally protects you from the spell's harmful effects. In this case the harmful effect is being more vulnerable to fear effects and intimidate. If you pass the saving throw the spell cannot affect you.

[Boci]

I don't really understand your logic though. If you pass a spell's saving throw that generally protects you from the spell's harmful effects. In this case the harmful effect is being more vulnerable to fear effects and intimidate. If you pass the saving throw the spell cannot affect you.

My logic line of thinking is that the spell does not make you more vulnerable to intimidate, it makes the caster better at intimidating.

[Tyndmyr]

My logic line of thinking is that the spell does not make you more vulnerable to intimidate, it makes the caster better at intimidating.

That's an interesting line of thinking, but it requires that the spell stop acting as a debuff, and start acting as a buff.

And the spell doesn't actually say that.

[Boci]

That's an interesting line of thinking, but it requires that the spell stop acting as a debuff, and start acting as a buff.

And the spell doesn't actually say that.

Is there actually any RAW on this matter, or are we just trading interpretations? Personally I object to a saving throw negating a buff to the caster, but it could simply be that the author of the spell could not be bothered to write "the target recieves a -10 penalty to opposed rolls to resist being intimidated by you".

[Tyndmyr]

Spells where you save for part of it, and not for another part, or use of it, are designated as such. For reference, see disintigrate or any of the orb spells.

The rules in all of D&D are permissive. You can do what it says you can do, not "you can do everything not explicitly banned".

Therefore, if it says it has a save and targets hostiles, it has a save and targets hostiles for every use of the spell, unless it contains a specific exception(as specific overrides general).

There is no exception in this case. So, while it might make sense for the two uses of it to work in different ways, they don't.

[Zovc]

Edit: Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking suggesting this. Your spell would have to give you a bonus to intimidating a target for my suggestion to mean anything.

Perhaps, in light of my realization, your spell should affect one target. If they fail their save, you get a +10 to Intimidate checks against them.

[jiriku]

Nothing that I said in any way indicated any kind of anger. Why are you specifically attempting to attack me personally by asserting that I am overly emotional instead of addressing my arguments?

Your posts come across as rude, confrontational, and dismissive of others. Your tone is defensive and accusatory, as if you were upset. Perhaps you weren't aware of this until now. It's no slight to you. It can happen to anyone from time to time; text is a poor medium for a debate. I've looked at many of my own posts in hindsight and found that they didn't come across the way I intended.

I didn't respond to your arguments because I don't need to. I posted a position in support of the OP. You challenged my position. I provided detailed support for my position and a fair-minded look at yours. The OP found the analysis helpful; my goal of helping him was accomplished. Frankly, there's no point in my attempting to persuade you of anything; neither of us plays in his campaign or intends to use the spell.


Spells where you save for part of it, and not for another part, or use of it, are designated as such. For reference, see disintigrate or any of the orb spells.

The rules in all of D&D are permissive. You can do what it says you can do, not "you can do everything not explicitly banned".

Therefore, if it says it has a save and targets hostiles, it has a save and targets hostiles for every use of the spell, unless it contains a specific exception(as specific overrides general).

There is no exception in this case. So, while it might make sense for the two uses of it to work in different ways, they don't.

I totally agree with you on this. A MUCH better way to write it would be either
a) target is shaken and takes a -10 to resist your Intimidate checks, save negates, or
b) if cast on targets, they are shaken, save negates; if cast on caster, caster gains +10 to intimidate. or even
c) affects caster and targets. Caster gains +10 intimidate, targets are shaken, save negates.

[Tinydwarfman]

Um... Did you read the spell's range? "Any number or targets, no two of which can be more than 30ft apart."

That's similar to the wording used by Chain Lightning. It effectively means that it's a 30ft spread, except that you can choose to not affect allies. Which for a fear based enchantment makes sense.

Ah, my bad, I was misinterpreting it as "targets must be within 30 ft of each other", leading to scaring entire armies. :smallredface: