Why is fog cloud such a good spell? I honestly don't see it.

[Masakan]

I mean it's alright yeah but nothing spectacular.

[Seto]

Maybe you mean Cloudkill ?

[Masakan]

Maybe you mean Cloudkill ?
is that it?

[Seto]

is that it?

I don't know. Fog Cloud exists and is useful, but as you said, nothing spectacular. Cloudkill, however, has some nasty effects on top of functioning as Fog Cloud (such as inflicting Constitution damage even if you're a high level character who made their save), and is widely considered as one of the best AoE spells out there.

[Masakan]

I don't know. Fog Cloud exists and is useful, but as you said, nothing spectacular. Cloudkill, however, has some nasty effects on top of functioning as Fog Cloud (such as inflicting Constitution damage even if you're a high level character who made their save), and is widely considered as one of the best AoE spells out there.

Huh guess I just misheard then.

[Kraken]

Fog cloud can be pretty good for the right character. If you've taken the flyby attack feat, you can hide in a fog cloud, move out, take your standard and swift actions, and move back in.

[Thisguy_]

Fog cloud...
See it...

Get it? It's a pun.

[Psyren]

It's a cheapo form of battlefield control, particularly for Druids, who have fewer options in that area. If you're indoors at a chokepoint, you can keep enemy casters from targeting your team from afar with nasty effects and force them to get closer if they want to engage you. It also blocks True Seeing. And unlike Cloudkill it stays in one place.

Solid Fog is pretty much universally better but you get FC earlier and Druids don't get that anyway.


Fog cloud...
See it...

Get it? It's a pun.

Thisguy gets it :smallbiggrin:

[Necroticplague]

You can't charge, run, or attack through something if you can't see the other side. At best, you can guess where someone is with a ranged attack for a 50% chance to hit, discounting AoEs. Thus, Fog Cloud provides much of the protection of higher level Wall spells at considerably lower price. It's 20 foot radius means it can renders a massive part of the battlefield unable to be charged through, and provides the ever useful concealment to sneaky people (which has a side effect of allowing you to move through the cloud AoO free, since you can't AoO people with concealment). That's a decent amount of control for a level 2 spell. There are even more potent version available at higher levels, which keep this benefit, but add things like con damage, fire damage, acid damage, and being ridiculously hard to move through.

[eggynack]

I don't think I've generally seen it asserted as anything more than a pretty good spell. Cutting off vision is a useful thing, but as you noted, it is nothing spectacular. My suspicion is in line with that of other posters here, that the assertions being made were with respect to the broader collection of fog spells. That includes cloud kill and solid fog, certainly, but it also includes others like freezing fog and sleet storm. Really useful class of spells, even if that particular example isn't the best.


It's a cheapo form of battlefield control, particularly for Druids, who have fewer options in that area.
Not really sure how you can assert that with entangle and impeding stones sitting right there. Druid BFC's are pretty top notch by my reckoning.

[Psyren]

Not really sure how you can assert that with entangle and impeding stones sitting right there. Druid BFC's are pretty top notch by my reckoning.

Er, neither of those stop enemy archers from pincushioning you or a dryad from charming your fighter. Breaking line of sight however does. It's another tool in the tool box.

[Chronos]

I think the main point is that it's only a second-level spell. No, it's not going to single-handedly slay a dragon, but then, no second-level spell will. For what it costs you, though, it's a pretty good deal.

[Necroticplague]

I think the main point is that it's only a second-level spell. No, it's not going to single-handedly slay a dragon, but then, no second-level spell will. For what it costs you, though, it's a pretty good deal.

This. It's effects are decent, and it has a pretty low cost. This averages out to a pretty good cost:benefit ratio.

[eggynack]

Er, neither of those stop enemy archers from pincushioning you or a dryad from charming your fighter. Breaking line of sight however does. It's another tool in the tool box.
I guess, but that's not exactly a necessary quality of BFC's. Besides, is there really all that much on other lists that can do the job all that much better? I suppose pyrotechnics is pretty good, but that spell has its share of limitations.

[Triskavanski]

You could also be one of the races that have the ability to see through the fog cloud, breaking the enemy's ability to kill you while not hampering yourself.

[Psyren]

I guess, but that's not exactly a necessary quality of BFC's. Besides, is there really all that much on other lists that can do the job all that much better? I suppose pyrotechnics is pretty good, but that spell has its share of limitations.

Blocking line of sight may not be "necessary," but being able to do it when the situation calls for it is pretty helpful for a controller. Some of the threats you face won't need to get next to you to cause trouble after all.

"I don't want those ranged enemies to be able to target us" isn't exactly a niche situation, especially at lower levels when a couple of arrows or a ray of enfeeblement can actually get someone killed. You can even drop it between the enemy melee and their ranged support, dividing the battlefield and blocking the control attempts of the other side.

[eggynack]

Blocking line of sight may not be "necessary," but being able to do it when the situation calls for it is pretty helpful for a controller. Some of the threats you face won't need to get next to you to cause trouble after all.

"I don't want those ranged enemies to be able to target us" isn't exactly a niche situation, especially at lower levels when a couple of arrows or a ray of enfeeblement can actually get someone killed. You can even drop it between the enemy melee and their ranged support, dividing the battlefield and blocking the control attempts of the other side.
I didn't mean necessary from a worth perspective. I meant it from a definitional perspective. Or, to put it another way, a spell need not protect from archers to be defined as a battlefield control spell. Druids do have a couple of spells that can do that kinda thing though, like wall of smoke (SpC, 235), blockade (CS, 95), and even the odd wall of fungus (KoK, 191), so druids aren't especially lacking even in that specific subset of BFC spells.

[Psyren]

I didn't mean necessary from a worth perspective. I meant it from a definitional perspective. Or, to put it another way, a spell need not protect from archers to be defined as a battlefield control spell. Druids do have a couple of spells that can do that kinda thing though, like wall of smoke (SpC, 235), blockade (CS, 95), and even the odd wall of fungus (KoK, 191), so druids aren't especially lacking even in that specific subset of BFC spells.

A spell, no, but to be a controller you need to be able to defend against multiple kinds of threat. A controller who can only tangle up melee attackers while the party gets rained on from afar isn't very good at it I'd say.

As for the spells you pointed out, more options are certainly good, but having one in core is even better since you can guarantee that one being available in just about any campaign. (I think one of those might be third-party too.)

[eggynack]

As for the spells you pointed out, more options are certainly good, but having one in core is even better since you can guarantee that one being available in just about any campaign. (I think one of those might be third-party too.)
I'm still not sure what these options that are so good for other classes are. As for wall of fungus, I'm pretty sure that, while kingdoms of kalamar is weird, it's not third party.

[Psyren]

I'm still not sure what these options that are so good for other classes are. As for wall of fungus, I'm pretty sure that, while kingdoms of kalamar is weird, it's not third party.

Publisher information (http://www.amazon.com/Kingdoms-Kalamar-Campaign-Sourcebook-Roleplaying/dp/1889182508) shows some outfit called "Kenzer & Co.," not WotC. It's licensed third-party, sure, but still third-party.

As for the options for other classes, it's the little things. Druids not getting web (why???), or glitterdust, or solid fog or grease or darkness for instance, or Wall of Stone being arbitrarily higher for them.

[Inevitability]

I think the main point is that it's only a second-level spell. No, it's not going to single-handedly slay a dragon, but then, no second-level spell will. For what it costs you, though, it's a pretty good deal.

Sanctum Spell Shivering Touch says hi.

[Troacctid]

A spell, no, but to be a controller you need to be able to defend against multiple kinds of threat. A controller who can only tangle up melee attackers while the party gets rained on from afar isn't very good at it I'd say.

As for the spells you pointed out, more options are certainly good, but having one in core is even better since you can guarantee that one being available in just about any campaign. (I think one of those might be third-party too.)

Druids get Wind Wall in core too. Also Stone Shape, Obscuring Mist, Sleet Storm, Summon Nature's Ally (to threaten opportunity attacks), plus more stuff at higher levels. And Entangle may not be a hard counter, but it still gives them -4 to hit if they fail the save.

[Psyren]

Druids get Wind Wall in core too. Also Stone Shape, Obscuring Mist, Sleet Storm, Summon Nature's Ally (to threaten opportunity attacks), plus more stuff at higher levels. And Entangle may not be a hard counter, but it still gives them -4 to hit if they fail the save.

Those are all useful in their own way but they all have drawbacks too. OM forms around you rather than being placeable as you wish; as written Sleet Storm only blocks LoS if you're standing in it, and neither Wind Wall nor SNA block LoS (though at least the former stops arrows.)

My overall point is that FC can be useful too and it's up to the caster to know when it is and when using something else makes more sense; that's their job.

[eggynack]

Publisher information (http://www.amazon.com/Kingdoms-Kalamar-Campaign-Sourcebook-Roleplaying/dp/1889182508) shows some outfit called "Kenzer & Co.," not WotC. It's licensed third-party, sure, but still third-party.
Way I see it, it's kinda in the same boat as dragon, which puts it somewhere between first and third. Something like second party, meaning, "You make a thing," rather than, "I make a thing," or, "They make a thing." Not always an accepted source, but on a level higher than third party.


As for the options for other classes, it's the little things. Druids not getting web (why???), or glitterdust, or solid fog or grease or darkness for instance, or Wall of Stone being arbitrarily higher for them.
Those are good spells, but druids have other good spells, especially if you expand to higher levels. Stone shape, for example, or control winds, or wall of thorns, or, if you expand out a little, blinding spittle.


My overall point is that FC can be useful too and it's up to the caster to know when it is and when using something else makes more sense; that's their job.
Well, sure. I just don't think that the druid list is so limited in that area that it's somehow especially good for them. It's a pretty decent spell.

[Deophaun]

Stone shape, for example

How is stone shape BFC? I mean, maybe if you need an impromptu stone door, but in general, 10 cu ft + 1 cu ft/level will get you a 1 ft-high, 1 ft-deep curb that spans across six squares at level 20. I don't even think that blocks a charge.

[eggynack]

How is stone shape BFC? I mean, maybe if you need an impromptu stone door, but in general, 10 cu ft + 1 cu ft/level will get you a 1 ft-high, 1 ft-deep curb that spans across six squares at level 20. I don't even think that blocks a charge.
You can get that stone pretty thin, ridiculously so if you want, to block line of effect, or alter the ground to make travel more difficult, or even make that particular sort of curb. You don't stop things in an especially dense way, but the versatility intrinsic to the ways you can manipulate the stone means that you're getting the ideal low density solution to any given problem.

[Deophaun]

You can get that stone pretty thin...
I'm not sure you can. It says you get to play with cubic feet. It doesn't say cubic inches or cubic nanometers. It doesn't matter if your 1' cube has a super-strong honeycomb structure that leaves 99% of the volume as empty space, that's still taking up your full cubic foot allotment, not 1% of it.

[Rubik]

I'm not sure you can. It says you get to play with cubic feet. It doesn't say cubic inches or cubic nanometers. It doesn't matter if your 1' cube has a super-strong honeycomb structure that leaves 99% of the volume as empty space, that's still taking up your full cubic foot allotment, not 1% of it.A sheet of stone a tenth of an inch thick can still be measured in cubic feet if the width and length are broad enough, without decimals.

[eggynack]

A sheet of stone a tenth of an inch thick can still be measured in cubic feet if the width and length are broad enough, without decimals.
Yeah, basically this. You start off with a given quantity of stone, and then manipulate it in the fashion you like. If you'd be taking up too much space with a given expression of that volume, then you can just make the stone thicker and wind up with an even stronger structure. And, if you're asserting that the outer parameters of the structure give you the volume, then it seems pretty clear to me that the volume given is for the initial stone, so even if the end result would take up a greater volume by some different measurement (which doesn't really make sense by the notion of volume measurement in the first place), it doesn't matter because the question of volume is still only asked at the beginning.

[Deophaun]

And, if you're asserting that the outer parameters of the structure give you the volume, then it seems pretty clear to me that the volume given is for the initial stone, so even if the end result would take up a greater volume by some different measurement (which doesn't really make sense by the notion of volume measurement in the first place), it doesn't matter because the question of volume is still only asked at the beginning.
In that case, keep in mind that the ground or dungeon wall is likely much, much, much, much bigger than your puny caster level lets you modify. And now you're stuck with a flimsy freestanding structure instead of something anchored in place that, if you make it real thin, by all rights shouldn't stand.

I think you've managed to make this spell even less useful.

[eggynack]

In that case, keep in mind that the ground or dungeon wall is likely much, much, much, much bigger than your puny caster level lets you modify. And now you're stuck with a flimsy freestanding structure instead of something anchored in place that, if you make it real thin, by all rights shouldn't stand.

I think you've managed to make this spell even less useful.
Why wouldn't the structure be attached to other stone? I don't even know if you can disconnect the stone when shaping it, and even if you can, you certainly don't have to. You can make anything that has a pretty decent volume, and some expressions of that volume are effective without being something that gets crushed under its own weight. I'm also not sure why the size of the ground or dungeon wall matters. You're impacting a given volume of stone, and that volume can easily be a section of the stone before you. Whether the wall is massive or small doesn't really change what you're capable of doing, at least up until you run out of stone.

[Mr Adventurer]

It's possible to read the Target line of the spell so that it only works on a piece of stone that fits into the volume permitted by your caster level.

[eggynack]

It's possible to read the Target line of the spell so that it only works on a piece of stone that fits into the volume permitted by your caster level.
The spell does not specify that the volume need be a discrete chunk to any extent. In fact, given that the spell specifies both the volume of stone and a stone object of that volume, with an object really not defined in a way separate from a simple volume aside from its discrete nature, it's heavily implied that you can use stone that is attached to other stone.

[Aletheides]

I don't know, my magus character thought Fog Cloud was pretty useful when my party stumbled on a lair of Basilisks! Concealment miss chances seem less of a hassle when said concealment also blocks line-of-sight from a lot of monsters with gaze attacks. :smallbiggrin:

Just don't forget to keep a Dispel Magic in your pocket if you use the conjuration Cloud spells, since you can't dismiss them at will; otherwise they'll start being more hindrance than help later in the fight.

[Vogie]

Fog cloud...
See it...

Get it? It's a pun.

Why would anyone use Control Winds? I honestly think it blows.

[nedz]

Why is Fireball such a bad spell ? I think it's very hot.

[Flickerdart]

I've always thought chill metal was a very cool spell.

[Chronos]

While being able to shut down enemy archers is a point in favor of Fog Cloud over Entangle, there's also the reverse case to consider, where your team has archers and the enemy doesn't. In that case, Entangle single-handedly wins the encounter, while Fog Cloud would be nearly useless. In my experience, that's a much more common situation, especially considering that you can control what equipment you have to suit your tactics.

[Psyren]

While being able to shut down enemy archers is a point in favor of Fog Cloud over Entangle, there's also the reverse case to consider, where your team has archers and the enemy doesn't. In that case, Entangle single-handedly wins the encounter, while Fog Cloud would be nearly useless. In my experience, that's a much more common situation, especially considering that you can control what equipment you have to suit your tactics.

Is it? Your team is likely to have one archer, maybe two. The enemy meanwhile can have as many as the encounter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0455.html) dictates. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0916.html) Being able to create (total) concealment can be a godsend for your side.

[Chronos]

Your team might only have one dedicated archer, but everyone should have some ranged attack option or another. And the enemy should, too, but in practice, most published encounters don't. Yes, sometimes they do, and sometimes they have a lot more archery than you have, so Fog Cloud or similar certainly has a niche, there. I never said it's a bad spell. I just think that, most often, Entangle is better.

[Deophaun]

The spell does not specify that the volume need be a discrete chunk to any extent.
It says the object has to be within a given size. If the object is bigger than that size, there is nothing in the spell description that permits you to affect only a portion of the object.

it's heavily implied that you can use stone that is attached to other stone.
No, it's not implied at all. It says a single stone object of a given volume. Yours is the "it doesn't say I can't" method of rule interpretation.

[eggynack]

It says the object has to be within a given size. If the object is bigger than that size, there is nothing in the spell description that permits you to affect only a portion of the object.

No, it's not implied at all. It says a single stone object of a given volume. Yours is the "it doesn't say I can't" method of rule interpretation.
There is no object here, is my point. Object is only one of the two options for the volume you can manipulate, with the other being any given volume of stone unbounded by object status. You keep returning to this idea of a stone object of a given volume, but that's not the mode being used here. I'm simply targeting 10+CL cubic feet of stone, and there is no restriction on how that volume must be taken.

[Solaris]

Your team might only have one dedicated archer, but everyone should have some ranged attack option or another. And the enemy should, too, but in practice, most published encounters don't. Yes, sometimes they do, and sometimes they have a lot more archery than you have, so Fog Cloud or similar certainly has a niche, there. I never said it's a bad spell. I just think that, most often, Entangle is better.

I agree. In a lot of situations, the ability to make someone stick in one place and suffer penalties to attack rolls and AC has benefitted me more than all of us suffering a miss chance.
A well-placed entangle can keep a hill giant from squishing the party casters, for example.