Friendly Fire Spell

[isotunknown]

How does the Friendly Fire Spell work? Would you even be able to use it on any spell/ability that makes a ranged attack or a ranged touch attack targeting you? Does the redirected target have to be a legal target of the original attack? Seems like a pretty great spell.

[Cog]

What's the source on it? IMarvinTPA (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndLive/FindSpell.php) has a pretty thorough searchable list, but it's not in there.

[isotunknown]

Exemplars of Evil on page 27.

[Re'ozul]

Since it doesn't mention physical attacks specifically I guess you can use it on anything that has a ranged (touch) attack roll.
And usually there are no distinctions between friend and foe. Everything is a viable target, so you could reflect it at anything.
At least thats how I see it.

[Cog]

If you cast the spell to interrupt an attack (or if you have the rounds/level version already up), the attack is automatically deflected away from you; you do not risk being hit at all as long as you have a new valid target within 30' of yourself. Whatever the original attack roll was, that same number (don't reroll) is applied to your chosen target's AC, and the attack is resolved from there as if it had originally been aimed at that target from the beginning.

I see nothing restricting your choice of targets; apparently it doesn't even have to be a creature, and could instead merely be a square. Yeah, as written I think this spell is probably too good for 4th level.

[ShriekingDrake]

Holy defensive deflection, Batman; that's some powerful spell. I'd never noticed it before. At 4th level it's VERY nice. This belongs on many lists.

[Bakkan]

And it's persistable....

:smallconfused::smallamused::smallbiggrin:

[ShriekingDrake]

And it's persistable....

:smallconfused::smallamused::smallbiggrin:

This is a bad, bad spell. It's immunity to ranged attacks.

[isotunknown]

What would it cost to make a permanent item of Friendly Fire?

[ShriekingDrake]

I believe it would cost the quality of the gaming experience. :smalltongue:

[Cog]

The custom-item guidelines are merely guidelines, and some spells are simply too strong for those to be a worthwhile number. This spell is almost certainly one of those.

[backpackjack]

If you cast the spell to interrupt an attack (or if you have the rounds/level version already up), the attack is automatically deflected away from you; you do not risk being hit at all as long as you have a new valid target within 30' of yourself. Whatever the original attack roll was, that same number (don't reroll) is applied to your chosen target's AC, and the attack is resolved from there as if it had originally been aimed at that target from the beginning.

I see nothing restricting your choice of targets; apparently it doesn't even have to be a creature, and could instead merely be a square. Yeah, as written I think this spell is probably too good for 4th level.

Wow. In my mind, this is a game changing spell that belongs on every sorcerer's list.

When would you have to announce using a spell like this: before or after the dice are rolled?

[Cog]

When would you have to announce using a spell like this: before or after the dice are rolled?
That depends on how hard you want the book to be thrown at your head.

[Cruiser1]

The spell "Friendly Fire" can't just be used by any Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard. The previous page explicitly says the listed spells are intended for use by villains, where PC's must get DM permission before they can acquire and learn them. The book also warns that given the sinister nature of the spells (i.e. their high power) that thay may not be appropriate for a campaign.

[Boci]

The spell "Friendly Fire" can't just be used by any Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard. The previous page explicitly says the listed spells are intended for use by villains, where PC's must get DM permission before they can acquire and learn them. The book also warns that given the sinister nature of the spells (i.e. their high power) that thay may not be appropriate for a campaign.

PC: Wow, that's a powerful spell. We should be able to get it from his spell book once we defeat him. Have I heard of it before? *rolls spellcraft*
DM: Oh don't be rediculous. This is far to powerful for you to use, only villains can.

Yeah I can totally see that going down well in the vast majority of groups.

[Saintheart]

The spell "Friendly Fire" can't just be used by any Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard. The previous page explicitly says the listed spells are intended for use by villains, where PC's must get DM permission before they can acquire and learn them. The book also warns that given the sinister nature of the spells (i.e. their high power) that thay may not be appropriate for a campaign.

Bolded the important bit. RAI, not RAW! :smallbiggrin:

[ShriekingDrake]

Bolded the important bit. RAI, not RAW! :smallbiggrin:

I agree. It can clearly be used. Whether the DM allows it is another question. It is a good spell.

I think backpackjack's question is a good one. I think you would likely have to declare this before you know whether you'd be hit or not. I suppose you could make the argument that you can decide once you know whether the attack has hit you, but because the spell says "Whenever you are the target of a ranged attack or a ranged touch attack, you can cast this spell to deflect the attack toward another target within 30 feet.", it seems likely that you wouldn't get to know whether it hits you.

[only1doug]

I'd have to agree that it shouldn't be used by PCs.

my Solution: add a requirement: souloath to Mgliveartlu. Mgliveartlu grants the use of this spell to his fervent followers but every use of it (except for Instantaneous usages) requires his permission (he will never allow it to be persisted). (Full round action casting is enough time for Mgliveartlu to give Permission).

[Keld Denar]

How would that work WRT Spellblade Tennis?

[Big Fau]

I agree. It can clearly be used. Whether the DM allows it is another question. It is a good spell.

It's only slightly better than Wings of Cover. Actually much less useful because it's two levels higher.

[herrhauptmann]

How would that work WRT Spellblade Tennis?

Your character sheet catches fire when the DM glares at you in anger.

[Zaq]

I am aware of the concept of Spellblade Tennis, but I've forgotten most of the specifics. Can you give me a quick refresher course?

[Veyr]

A Spellblade weapon is attuned to a given spell. When that spell is cast on the wielder, it is absorbed by the weapon. The wielder may then release the spell on the next turn, with little-to-no action cost (can't remember precisely; point is, it doesn't take your Standard).

There is no limit on the number of times the same spell may be absorbed or released at once.

This means two people standing with Spellblade weapons attuned to the same spell can stand facing one another, casting that spell on each other. When it starts, the first target catches the first spell, then on his turn casts the spell a second time and also releases the first casting; both are caught by the one who started it. On his turn, he casts the spell again while releasing both previous spells, so his opponent is now catching three. And so on.

[Cog]

It's only slightly better than Wings of Cover. Actually much less useful because it's two levels higher.
This neglects the version of Friendly Fire that has a duration. The immediate casting version is good, but the duration one is what's out of line.

[holywhippet]

This neglects the version of Friendly Fire that has a duration. The immediate casting version is good, but the duration one is what's out of line.

Especially since you use the original attack roll instead of your own. It's like the Jedi deflection trick but even more powerful.

[ShriekingDrake]

Especially since you use the original attack roll instead of your own. It's like the Jedi deflection trick but even more powerful.
It really is an astonishingly good spell. But, if you use it, expect your DMs to have it peppered throughout the bad guys. Between Friendly Fire and Wings of Cover, the Sorcerer is set . . . and yet, the Mailman and Swifthunter are in a world where they may be less powerful.

[Moginheden]

As others have said this spell would need to be houseruled to make it sane, it sounds WAY too good otherwise.

However the part of it I'd target with a houserule isn't if the spell can be cast by a player or if it needs a god's permission. I'd state that it needs to directed to a character, (player or enemy) not a zone, and it requires a spellcraft check slightly harder than a counterspell to do so, (maybe a DC 20 + spell level or DC 15 + twice spell level?)

I haven't looked at the rounds/level version but I'd expect that to have a "until used" clause so you can't reflect more than 1 spell/cast or if it's a higher level spell maybe 1 spell/3 caster levels.

[Devronq]

What if you simply stated that the duration version can only effect one attack per round, would that make it fair enough?

[Snowbluff]

I believe it would cost the quality of the gaming experience. :smalltongue:

Yeah pretty much. I am surprised it surprised you.

I have declared this as one of my fave spells previously.

Like a lot of fave spells, they are thematic to me, but I would never use them for the sake of the game. Like simulacrum, or Snowbluff makes his Snowfriend.

[Evolved Shrimp]

As others have said this spell would need to be houseruled to make it sane, it sounds WAY too good otherwise.

Well, maybe not. Notice that the spell description never explicitly states that the subject of the Friendly Fire spell gets to choose the new target. While this seems to be the intent, the spell description does not actually conflict with, e.g., determining the new target of a deflected spell at random.

Since this would often mean that a spell simply hurts another party member, it would make Friendly Fire less overpowered - though perhaps it would be nerfed too much.

[TuggyNE]

Well, maybe not. Notice that the spell description never explicitly states that the subject of the Friendly Fire spell gets to choose the new target. While this seems to be the intent, the spell description does not actually conflict with, e.g., determining the new target of a deflected spell at random.

Since this would often mean that a spell simply hurts another party member, it would make Friendly Fire less overpowered - though perhaps it would be nerfed too much.

Arguably, it wouldn't nerf it enough; the spell has a sharply limited range of redirection, so the caster can merely wander 40 feet from their party members and have fun.

[Evolved Shrimp]

the caster can merely wander 40 feet from their party members and have fun.

True, but this would mean that the caster loses the protection of her or his party, which may make this a risky tactic in many cases. (But, then again: No risk, no fun. :smallwink:)

[TuggyNE]

True, but this would mean that the caster loses the protection of her or his party, which may make this a risky tactic in many cases. (But, then again: No risk, no fun. :smallwink:)

A caster that's (ab)using friendly fire has probably graduated beyond the point of meaningful squishiness. :smalltongue:

[ShriekingDrake]

Look what was raised from the dead?

That said, this is a great spell. While the "toward another target within 30 feet" part of the spell is a nice bonus, the significant power of this spell, to my sensibilities, is in the "deflect" and "ranged attack or ranged touch attack" aspects of the spell, as well as the ability to cast it immediately.

One place where one of my groups has had some debate is precisely WHEN the spell caster can invoke the spell: 1) just after the caster has become a target but before any die rolls, 2) just after a successful to-hit roll but before any saving throw, 3) after the saving throw but before any damaged is rolled, or 4) after everything, essentially preventing assured damage.

Any thoughts on this?

[erok0809]

If I were DMing, it would have to be cast as soon as you were declared the target of the spell, before any roll occurred. It's too good otherwise, at least in my opinion.