[PF]Thundering Drums... any errata?

[OverdrivePrime]

I'm looking around for fun Bard spells and I stumbled across this gem.
Thundering Drums (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/thundering-drums)
School evocation [sonic]; Level bard 3
EFFECT
Range 15 ft.
Area cone-shaped burst
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Fortitude partial; Spell Resistance yes
DESCRIPTION
You strike the ground in front of you, filling the area in front of you with the thunder of pounding drums. Any creature in the area takes 1d8 points of sonic damage per caster level (maximum 5d8) and is knocked prone. A successful Fortitude save halves the damage and negates being knocked prone.
WHAT? It's a 3rd level bard spell, so unless you're pulling some wacky early-access tricks you're at least 7th level by the time you can cast it.
And yet, it inflicts 1d8 damage per caster level, maxing out at 5d8?

Is there some errata on this spell that I haven't found yet? Should that be 15d8? Should that be 1d8 per three caster levels (in which case, dump this spell asap)?

[Der_DWSage]

If there were errata, it'd be put on the page itself. Seems to be as-is.

It's just a bad spell, it looks like. I don't see any reason to flip out over it-Bards don't exactly get great damaging spells as a rule of thumb, and this is just a worse example of that.

[stack]

Eh, not too surprising. Sonic damage is uncommon and it has a prone rider.

Not saying its anywhere close to good, but most spells, feats, archetypes, etc are weak to useless so its about par.

[Bhaakon]

Fort save or fall prone without size qualifiers is not something to laugh at. It could be better, but it has its uses. They wrote the damage that way in case a full caster gets access to it. There are numerous ways to poach spells from other casting lists.

[Keneth]

They wrote the damage that way in case a full caster gets access to it.

Or if the bard gets level drained. Or if the CL is otherwise reduced.

[Fax Celestis]

Plus, sonic damage tends to come in smaller chunks specifically because of its use in destroying objects. This spell, btw, is pretty phenomenal for wrecking buildings and objects. 5d8 no-hardness a round (average 22) is enough to break down a strong door (hardness 5, 20 HP), destroy manacles (hardness 10, 10 HP), sunder weaponry (hardness 10, 10 HP/inch of thickness), and burst chests (hardness 5, 15 HP).

[Killer Angel]

Plus, it should effectively damage burrowed creatures.

[OverdrivePrime]

Hmmm... all that makes sense, but I'll still be grumpy about it the wording. It's just inconsistent. This is a spell that's basically intended to do 5d8 damage and knock someone prone. You guys are totally right that 5d8+knockdown is is pretty solid for a bard spell. But then why hint at scaling damage at all? There are plenty of other bard spells with flat damage. :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

Hmmm... all that makes sense, but I'll still be grumpy about it the wording. It's just inconsistent. This is a spell that's basically intended to do 5d8 damage and knock someone prone. You guys are totally right that 5d8+knockdown is is pretty solid for a bard spell. But then why hint at scaling damage at all? There are plenty of other bard spells with flat damage. :smallconfused:

It can scale higher actually, you just need the right tools. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/intensified-spell-metamagic) Making it flat would have prevented that.

EDIT: And what do you know, the spell and feat are from the same book (APG). Seems to me they wanted that combo to be found.

[OverdrivePrime]

It can scale higher actually, you just need the right tools. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/intensified-spell-metamagic) Making it flat would have prevented that.

EDIT: And what do you know, the spell and feat are from the same book (APG). Seems to me they wanted that combo to be found.

Aaaaahaaa... it all makes sense now. Thanks Psyren!

[Fax Celestis]

Seems to me they wanted that combo to be found.

Or at least to set precedent.

[stack]

10D8 ignoring hardness? I guess a bard should know how to make an entrance.

[Psyren]

10D8 ignoring hardness? I guess a bard should know how to make an entrance.

Except for psionics, that's up to the GM actually:

"Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects."

[Fax Celestis]

Except for psionics, that's up to the GM actually:

"Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects."

O. My god. PF changed object breaking rules and somehow made them worse? I am disappoint.

Worse, btw, means "left it up to the dm", which means there's no consistency between tables and even from session to session. It's also very lazy design.

[Psyren]

O. My god. PF changed object breaking rules and somehow made them worse? I am disappoint.

What "change?" Sonic doesn't bypass hardness by default in 3.5 either. In fact, in 3.5, acid and sonic are just as subject to hardness (regardless of the material in question) as any other energy type. It's worse than PF, not better.

[stack]

You know, I actually read that but hear that it bypasses hardness so often that I forget.

[Fax Celestis]

What "change?" Sonic doesn't bypass hardness by default in 3.5 either. In fact, in 3.5, acid and sonic are just as subject to hardness (regardless of the material in question) as any other energy type. It's worse than PF, not better.

This is the quoted section in 3.5:

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.

Set, fixed values rather than "make the DM do it".

[Psyren]

This is the quoted section in 3.5:

Right, they're still subject to hardness - the only difference is the additional reduction that cold, fire and electricity have to deal with.

And the DM still has to "do it" thanks to statements like "most objects." So now you get to have a lovely argument about whether the fire damage reduction applies to wood, or whether the cold one applies to leather.

[Fax Celestis]

I didn't say 3.5's was good, just that PFs was lazier.

Mechanically, PFs is more sound (because objects don't get to apply damage reduction twice), but it's lazy and that bothers me a lot more than it probably should.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Fort save or fall prone without size qualifiers is not something to laugh at. It could be better, but it has its uses. They wrote the damage that way in case a full caster gets access to it. There are numerous ways to poach spells from other casting lists.Yes, but even if the caster got access to the spell, it would still already be maxed out. No caster could cast that before level 5 without some shenanigans.

[danzibr]

It can scale higher actually, you just need the right tools. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/intensified-spell-metamagic) Making it flat would have prevented that.

EDIT: And what do you know, the spell and feat are from the same book (APG). Seems to me they wanted that combo to be found.
Dang. That makes it substantially better.