Streamers [3.5]

[gomipile]

First, I have a question about the spell Streamers (Shining South.) Does each streamer only get one attack?


Anyway, I was wondering what all people have been able to accomplish with this spell. Creative uses, optimized damage output with them, all of that.

[olelia]

If I remember from listening to the cheezy whispers it does damage for every action...aka...movement...attacking...free action like 5 foot steps...and even speaking since its a free "action"!

[gomipile]

I'm just saying that from a reading of the spell's text, it seems to me that each streamer gets only a single readied attack. If they get more, then great, but I'd need some convincing.

[Jarian]

People who want the spell to be broken will tell you that the text does not qualify as a true readied action, and thus triggers every time.

People who actually want to use the spell will go with the one attack/round reading.

Edit: As to the second question: I haven't actually used the spell much, due to how easy it is to become overwhelming. I did, however, maximize it a couple times. The results were amusing, to say the least.

[gomipile]

Ah, it's just that from my reading of the spell it seems each streamer gets one attack over the entire duration of the spell. Not even one attack per round.

[Claudius Maximus]

The spell is pretty poorly written. We spent a lot of time trying to figure it out at the Test of Spite, but we could never agree on how it worked. I believe the consensus of the DMs over there was that they get an unlimited number of attacks as long as the duration is on.

5-stepping doesn't provoke them though, since that is explicitly not an action.

[gomipile]

So, what is the logic behind an individual streamer getting an attack per round, based on the wording of the spell?

[CapnVan]

Well, the text reads:
"Whenever the target next takes any sort of action, the streamer makes a touch attack against it... If a target takes no actions for the duration of the spell, the streamers around it disappear with no effect."

In other words, it's not even one attack per round, it's anytime the target takes an action.

And, since the spell specifically has a duration, and the text makes no indication that each streamer only gets any limitation on the number of attacks it can make, as written, it seems pretty clear that they don't get just one attack and then disappear, but remain in effect for the duration.

[The Mentalist]

Well, the text reads:
"Whenever the target next takes any sort of action, the streamer makes a touch attack against it... If a target takes no actions for the duration of the spell, the streamers around it disappear with no effect."
.

I think that the emphasized bit makes it read a little different, it reads like a discharge effect from here. I'll read the spell myself though.

[gomipile]

Yeah, it's the "next" bit that made me think that maybe they only get one attack, ever.

[CapnVan]

I don't think it has anything to do with the "next" bit, but I can certainly understand why someone would rule that they only get one attack, period.

There's nothing specifically in the text supporting such a ruling, but...

[Lapak]

'Next takes an action' strongly implies a discharge to me. Since that also makes the spell useful without being ridiculous, I think it was the intent that it should be read that way. The spell is a lockdown spell that the victim can voluntarily end by taking the hit or wait out the duration.

[Amphetryon]

Since the OP also asked about creative uses, I'll mention that I like Streamers coupled with Black Tentacles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blackTentacles.htm). If the opponent resists, he takes damage from the Streamers and has to overcome a potentially difficult Grapple check to escape a pin and additional damage. If he doesn't, he takes the damage from the tentacles every round.

[CapnVan]

'Next takes an action' strongly implies a discharge to me. Since that also makes the spell useful without being ridiculous, I think it was the intent that it should be read that way. The spell is a lockdown spell that the victim can voluntarily end by taking the hit or wait out the duration.

Lapak, I'm not sure about the "next" part, grammatically.

And, from a RAW point of view, I don't see any reason to say that the streamer discharges...

But... I think the way you're ruling it makes the most sense. Even then, I think it's overpowered — it's still basically a maze spell, isn't it? Except with damage? And the target can still be effected?

I've only been echoing the most extreme concepts, in RAW, in this. I believe it's wildly overpowered under the strict RAW, myself.

[Lapak]

Lapak, I'm not sure about the "next" part, grammatically.

And, from a RAW point of view, I don't see any reason to say that the streamer discharges..."Next" is unnecessary in the text unless it means "only the next time."

If it meant "every time they take an action until the duration expires", the phrasing could - and would - just have been "Whenever the target takes any sort of action..."

[Tyndmyr]

I agree with lapak's reading, grammatically.

Otherwise, next serves no purpose. Yes, it could certainly be written more clearly, spelling out "only the next time", but that is implicit. Either one of two things happen. You wait out the entire spell without acting, or the next time you take an action, you take damage.

Since there is no third possibility, and any other reading would require redefining the "next" action every time they take an action, it's pretty clear what the intent is.

[Sliver]

It's odd. From the quoted text, I'd say that it discharges. Do the streamers have a visual manifestation? Because it seems that they would attack once and stay for the duration of the spell. Which makes this spell odd, but not as odd as a Dex damage spell with duration.

[CapnVan]

I agree with lapak's reading, grammatically.

Otherwise, next serves no purpose. Yes, it could certainly be written more clearly, spelling out "only the next time", but that is implicit. Either one of two things happen. You wait out the entire spell without acting, or the next time you take an action, you take damage.

Since there is no third possibility, and any other reading would require redefining the "next" action every time they take an action, it's pretty clear what the intent is.

I'm sorry, but that's just simply not true. It's certainly an arguable interpretation, but that's not the same as saying it's the only possible reading. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to suggest that it is. Particularly when it's been argued over before, and will be again, without resolution.

Again, the text reads, "Whenever the target next takes any sort of action..."

Your interpretation would be more likely correct if the text read, "When the target next takes..." It's doesn't. That "whenever" implies that there may be more than one time, during the spell's effect, in which the target takes an action and would be affected by the spell.

I'll readily concede that the spell could have been written better. But it's a subject that certainly hasn't been settled, and probably won't be. It's baseless arrogance to suggest that one interpretation is the only one that's acceptable.

[Lapak]

I'm sorry, but that's just simply not true. It's certainly an arguable interpretation, but that's not the same as saying it's the only possible reading. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to suggest that it is. Particularly when it's been argued over before, and will be again, without resolution.You're certainly right that it's possible to interpret it a different way, and on top of that I've never been one to believe that the exact wording of the rules takes precedence over common sense. Which is why the trump card for me is that the spell is overpowered under other interpretations. When the reading seems right to me AND the game is more fun as a result, I'm pretty well convinced. Now, if your game is such that the other reading isn't overpowered, the reverse would be true for you. For my money, though, the spell reads better in every way if it discharges when it delivers damage.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm sorry, but that's just simply not true. It's certainly an arguable interpretation, but that's not the same as saying it's the only possible reading. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to suggest that it is. Particularly when it's been argued over before, and will be again, without resolution.

Well now, there were caveats to that, and the conclusion is a result of analyzing the possibilities.


Again, the text reads, "Whenever the target next takes any sort of action..."

Your interpretation would be more likely correct if the text read, "When the target next takes..." It's doesn't. That "whenever" implies that there may be more than one time, during the spell's effect, in which the target takes an action and would be affected by the spell.

When could have been used instead, yes. Probably would have been better to do so, as the longer word adds no additional meaning in this contest, but it's not necessary for the sentance to have a single meaning.


I'll readily concede that the spell could have been written better. But it's a subject that certainly hasn't been settled, and probably won't be. It's baseless arrogance to suggest that one interpretation is the only one that's acceptable.

What, because it had controversy means it must always have controversy? Not necessary. Go through the possibilities, examine the evidence, and kill the ones that don't fit. This may not always be possible, but it certainly can be. Controversy is not a justification for itself.

Let's look at the sentence in question:

"Whenever the target next takes any sort of action..."

The initial whenever indicates that the rest of the sentence is always in effect(at least, while the spell remains active).

It is functionally no different from me saying "Whenever you next visit the bank for any reason...". Yet, it's pretty clear that the intent is for you to do something JUST the next time you visit the bank. Next is the key limiting word.

[BeholderSlayer]

I go with the 1 attack/round interpretation. Also, I like to ignore the description that says the streamers are only red. It's much more entertaining to the group as a whole when the wizard casts Streamers and yells "TASTE THE RAINBOW!!!!"

[nyjastul69]

Doesn't the singular 'action', as opposed to the plural 'actions' come into play here? I haven't read the spell though. I'm going to now.

Edit: Crap! This one of the 3.y didn't I buy it books. :smallconfused:

[BeholderSlayer]

The spell doesn't say anything about the streamers disappearing after attacking, and it doesn't make sense (at least, to me) for them to just sit there and do nothing after that. Hence, we go with attacks every round.

[herrhauptmann]

Since the OP also asked about creative uses, I'll mention that I like Streamers coupled with Black Tentacles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blackTentacles.htm). If the opponent resists, he takes damage from the Streamers and has to overcome a potentially difficult Grapple check to escape a pin and additional damage. If he doesn't, he takes the damage from the tentacles every round.

Bah, there's better spells than that. Shining South has Kyristans Malevolent Tentacles that deals a negative level per round grappled. Yeah it allows a fort save, but do you really want to sit there rolling fort saves waiting for the streamers to disappear?

Looks like the damage from streamers is untyped, so a good use might be an energy substitution to really get at your opponent. If he's a cold subtype, turn your streamers into fire damage. Now it's (5d10)x1.5 damage :) Alternatively he can lay there and enjoy the tentacles.

corrected an error

[Zaydos]

Bah, there's better spells than that. Shining South has Kyristans Malevolent Tentacles that deals a negative level per round grappled. Yeah it allows a fort save, but do you really want to sit there rolling fort saves waiting for the streamers to disappear?

Looks like the damage from streamers is untyped, so a good use might be an energy substitution to really get at your opponent. If he's a cold subtype, turn your streamers into fire damage. Now it's (5d10)x2 damage :) Alternatively he can lay there and enjoy the tentacles.

Energy Substitution only works on spells that deal energy damage. Energy damage is defined as damage that deals one of the 5 energy types. The 5 energy types are Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Sonic. If it doesn't already deal one you can't use Energy Substitution on it.

Also vulnerability, as of 3.5, is 1.5 times (or 150% it lists both) instead of x2 damage.

[Wings of Peace]

"Next" is unnecessary in the text unless it means "only the next time."

If it meant "every time they take an action until the duration expires", the phrasing could - and would - just have been "Whenever the target takes any sort of action..."

I think this spell is poorly worded enough it can be read either way reasonably.

Following your logic for example I could also argue that because it says "Whenever" instead of "when" it can occur over multiple instances.

[herrhauptmann]

Energy Substitution only works on spells that deal energy damage. Energy damage is defined as damage that deals one of the 5 energy types. The 5 energy types are Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Sonic. If it doesn't already deal one you can't use Energy Substitution on it.


Still potentially doable. Look at the locate city bomb. You just need a few extra feats. Which ones, I'm not so sure...
Though I'm willing to bet that BoED has a feat which lets a damaging spell turn half its damage to [holy], thus BoVD has one for [unholy]

[arguskos]

Still potentially doable. Look at the locate city bomb. You just need a few extra feats. Which ones, I'm not so sure...
Though I'm willing to bet that BoED has a feat which lets a damaging spell turn half its damage to [holy], thus BoVD has one for [unholy]
Snowcasting+Flash Frost+Energy Sub (Electricity)+Born of the Three Thunders is a nice combo, and what you're probably thinking about. There's no way I'm aware of to give the 5d10 damage an energy subtype though.

[Mikka]

Hit the streamers once and they are destroyed.

A single whirlwind and voila, problem solved.

Also i'd rule that free and swift actions don't count. Only Standard and move actions. of course full-round actions as well

[Psyren]

The spell doesn't say anything about the streamers disappearing after attacking, and it doesn't make sense (at least, to me) for them to just sit there and do nothing after that. Hence, we go with attacks every round.

That was my take on it. Though one could also argue the duration is there because multiple targets might do different things. (e.g. some might run and take the hit, while others with lower health might stand stock still out of fear.) But one could argue either way.


A single whirlwind and voila, problem solved.

You certainly wouldn't have anything to worry about after that!

[The Mentalist]

You certainly wouldn't have anything to worry about after that!

Other than the whole wasted feats thing...

[Psyren]

Other than the whole wasted feats thing...

What I meant was, whirlwinding a bunch of streamers lets each one give you a 5d10 love tap. You could probably run yourself through and save them the trouble.

(But yeah, the feats thing too.)