Combat Spells that Don't Do Damage

[g3taso]

I'm playing a PF/3.5 game, as an arcane caster. My problem is that I'm tired of the damage game in combat. I recognize that haste/slow ends up doing more damage by and large that any fireball I might throw unless we get into heavy metamagic shenanigans. So what I want are 3.5/PF spells that are good for combat that don't rely on inflicting damage.

An example is flesh to stone. No damage, but that critter is certainly out of the fight. A teleport that doesn't rely on willing creatures so I might decide to send them a few miles underground is another one. Got some good suggestions for me in the L1-L7 range?

[nedz]

You are right about direct damage being a poor idea, besides: that's the fighter's job.

Fortunately there are lots of such spells — termed Battle Field Control

Here's (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394) a handbook, also with a PF version (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=6462).

[Geddy2112]

in addition to your battlefield control spells(haste/slow, AoE things, walls and barriers, etc), all of the save or suck/save or die spells (like flesh to stone) for single targets are ace choices.

Hold person, blindness/deafness, ray of (insert bad thing), command are all good low level things.

[ericgrau]

Yeah BFC is better anyway. No save debuffs too. Here are the best core ones I could find:
1: [empowered] ray of enfeeblement, sleep, color spray
2: web, levitate (works at range on allies, NPCs and objects too)
3: sleet storm, haste
4 (the jackpot level): resilient sphere, evard's black tentacles, greater invisibility, solid fog, wall of ice (technically does minor damage, but that's not its main purpose), [empowered] enervation
5: wall of force, magic jar

Search spell compendium for a bunch more similar spells, but at least that will help give you an idea of what to look for.

You have to wonder why you ever bother dealing a point of damage. In core fireball is nice and, um..., others are sometimes worth it but not always. Single target save or X spells like flesh to stone are pretty lousy though, usually worse than damage (both fireball and the others). Lots of things are immune, anything worthwhile will usually make its save or has SR, and anything not worthwhile could be picked off quickly with damage. Plus damage stacks with your allies' efforts either way, a passed save doesn't. Likewise BFC divides foes and makes it easier for your allies to pick off the stragglers. A single target SoX just says screw you party, I'm not going to help in most fights at all until finally the foe fails its save and then that will make all your damage pointless. Multi-target SoX are better than single target SoX. There it is more likely that at least one foe will fail a save.

[Red Fel]

in addition to your battlefield control spells(haste/slow, AoE things, walls and barriers, etc), all of the save or suck/save or die spells (like flesh to stone) for single targets are ace choices.

Hold person, blindness/deafness, ray of (insert bad thing), command are all good low level things.

Ehh... Save-or-Suck spells have their place, it's true, but the theoretically optimized caster doesn't give his spells a chance to fail; a save is precisely that. Now, Suck-or-Suck spells are another story - those are the ones where, even if you make the save, you suffer some negative outcome. And I'm not talking damage spells, because Evasion is a thing and makes Reflex saves a sad joke. I'm talking "Make a Fort save to avoid dying instantly; if you succeed, take a healthy chunk of pain," or "Make a Will save to not swallow your tongue in abject pants-crapping terror; if you succeed, take this big penalty to everything you do for awhile as you ponder the face of death itself." That sort of thing.

But yeah. BFCs are bread and butter. At low levels, something as simple as Grease or Glitterdust can move mountains; at high levels, you can literally move mountains, at which point you can pretty much arrange the battlefield in the most favorable way to your party.

[Troacctid]

And I'm not talking damage spells, because Evasion is a thing and makes Reflex saves a sad joke. I'm talking "Make a Fort save to avoid dying instantly; if you succeed, take a healthy chunk of pain," or "Make a Will save to not swallow your tongue in abject pants-crapping terror; if you succeed, take this big penalty to everything you do for awhile as you ponder the face of death itself." That sort of thing.


Let's be fair, now. Enemies with full immunity to the latter two types of spells are much, much more common than enemies with evasion. If you're going to scoff at anything with a Reflex save because of evasion, you should be scoffing even harder at anything that requires a Fortitude save because of undead and constructs, and even harder than that at any fear effects because really, who's not immune to fear, seriously?

[Flickerdart]

Don't discount the damage game - at least fireball deals half damage on a save. Flesh to stone is straight up negated on a save, and you just wasted your turn and spell slot doing nothing.

That's why the best spells to use are multi-threat spells, usually in the form of "damage + effect." Acid fog is commonly cited, but even a humble orb of fire dazes the target in addition to dealing its damage. Ice storm halves movement in the area (albeit for just one round) in addition to its damage.

In terms of non-damaging dual threat spells, cloudkill still provides concealment even against enemies that save against it.

[Red Fel]

and even harder than that at any fear effects because really, who's not immune to fear, seriously?

Anyone facing a Dread Witch, that's who. Greater Master of Terror is a wonder to behold.

[Flickerdart]

Anyone facing a Dread Witch, that's who. Greater Master of Terror is a wonder to behold.
Eh, I'd rather invest 4 levels into something that isn't "lose a caster level to penetrate fear immunity." Also it doesn't make spells stop being mind-affecting, meaning that a large swath of things that used to be immune to fear is still immune to fear.

And then it doesn't even work on people with 4 more HD than your CL.

[Florian]

I second what Flickerdart said and add that sometimes, just having raw damage at hand helps finishing an encounter.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Single target SoX spells aren't that good a choice unless you can be relatively certain (80%+) that the enemy is going to fail its save.
There's plenty of no-save ranged touch spells that are a lot more reliable against most enemies, and multi-target SoX spells for groups.

I can't really think of a situation where it would be preferable to cast Flesh to Stone (even disregarding that it denies you loot) or Finger of Death over other, less binary spells.


I second what Flickerdart said and add that sometimes, just having raw damage at hand helps finishing an encounter.

Dealing damage is for people that aren't smart enough to learn magic.
If you absolutely have to spend spell slots on damage (instead of letting people do it who can swing their swords all day) at least cast something that does guaranteed damage over several rounds or does something useful in addition to damage. There's enough spells that do that, and a lot of them don't do any less damage than a Fireball or Lightning Bolt would.

Pure blasting is a waste of spell slots unless you've seriously optimized it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Single target SoX spells aren't that good a choice unless you can be relatively certain (80%+) that the enemy is going to fail its save.
There's plenty of no-save ranged touch spells that are a lot more reliable against most enemies, and multi-target SoX spells for groups.

I can't really think of a situation where it would be preferable to cast Flesh to Stone (even disregarding that it denies you loot) or Finger of Death over other, less binary spells.

This is part of the reason I like Flesh to Salt. It takes some (granted unimpressive) damage and if it hits hard it has a chance of just ending them. (Other reasons include being more accessible, that statue being easier to destroy, and affecting creatures not primarily made of flesh).

[sleepyphoenixx]

This is part of the reason I like Flesh to Salt. It takes some (granted unimpressive) damage and if it hits hard it has a chance of just ending them. (Other reasons include being more accessible, that statue being easier to destroy, and affecting creatures not primarily made of flesh).

It's a trap. Flesh to Salt does 1d6 per 2 CL. If you'd use a normal d6/CL damage spell the enemy would be just as dead, and most of those are multi-target, lower level, no-save, no-SR and/or do something else in addtion to damage like debuffs or BFC.

Sure, turning someone into a salt statue is a pretty cool effect, but mechanically it's not really any different from killing them (unless you need to prevent resurrection).
At the level you get Flesh to Salt that's just not good enough to justify spending a slot on imo.

[Red Fel]

It's a trap. Flesh to Salt does 1d6 per 2 CL. If you'd use a normal d6/CL damage spell the enemy would be just as dead, and most of those are multi-target, lower level, no-save, no-SR and/or do something else in addtion to damage like debuffs or BFC.

Sure, turning someone into a salt statue is a pretty cool effect, but mechanically it's not really any different from killing them (unless you need to prevent resurrection).
At the level you get Flesh to Salt that's just not good enough to justify spending a slot on imo.

The point isn't that it's necessarily an awesome spell, but that it's damage with a rider. At the very least, you get some harm out of it; if you pack enough punch, it's also a Save-or-Die. That's the key.

Pure damage can be mitigated. Save-negates spells can be rendered fruitless. But a combination of the two - something that causes suffering even if you make the save - is solid.

Are there ways to deal damage effectively as a blaster? Yes. The Mailman comes to mind. But that's a case of specialization, perhaps even overspecialization. Generally, your melee combatants should be dealing more consistent damage than you. Your job, as a caster, is to control reality, not to punch things in the face with fire. Keep enemies from escaping. Divide and conquer. Lock those guys down while your friends kill these guys. Say "Nope" to their favored method of attack. It's the whole premise of the God Wizard - your job is to enable your party to get the job done.

Fireballs and lightning bolts are the tools of lesser gods.

[Deophaun]

Eh, I'd rather invest 4 levels into something that isn't "lose a caster level to penetrate fear immunity." Also it doesn't make spells stop being mind-affecting, meaning that a large swath of things that used to be immune to fear is still immune to fear.
It doesn't matter how they're immune to fear. If they are immune, it's bypassed. Immunity to mind-affecting grants immunity to fear the exact same way a paladin's Aura of Courage grants immunity to fear. There is no differentiation.

"Immune to fear" is NOT a game term. It is not an ability. It simply is.

[Beheld]

Some of the advice in this thread is soo bad :(

First question, what does your DM do when presented with a spell from the Spell Compenduim? If he lets you use 3.5 spells, then there are tons of options, if not, then you only have Pathfinder options, and that sucks.


It doesn't matter how they're immune to fear. If they are immune, it's bypassed. Immunity to mind-affecting grants immunity to fear the exact same way a paladin's Aura of Courage grants immunity to fear. There is no differentiation.

"Immune to fear" is NOT a game term. It is not an ability. It simply is.

I think this is almost certainly false. Paladin's are immune to fear, being immune to fear is being immune to fear, being immune to mind affecting effects is not being immune to fear, it is being immune to mind affecting effects. You might as well say that anything that pierces fire resistance pierces fire immunity because the immune creature resists the fire damage.

I would have to know the exact wording of the ability to be sure of course.

In any case, such an ability is poorly designed crap that makes the game worse by it's existence, but what can you do.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The point isn't that it's necessarily an awesome spell, but that it's damage with a rider. At the very least, you get some harm out of it; if you pack enough punch, it's also a Save-or-Die. That's the key.

Pure damage can be mitigated. Save-negates spells can be rendered fruitless. But a combination of the two - something that causes suffering even if you make the save - is solid.


I'm aware of all of that, and i've said as much in my post earlier.

In the case of Flesh to Salt though the rider only kicks in when you do half the targets hp in damage. Since it does half the damage other spells do the rider effect is effectively worthless, because whenever it triggers another damage spell would have killed the target outright. If the SoD triggered independently of the damage it would be different, but the way it is there is absolutely no advantage using Flesh to Salt over any spell that does d6/CL damage.
That's why i say it's a trap.

[Flickerdart]

"Immune to fear" is NOT a game term. It is not an ability. It simply is.

False. Immunity is a game term. Some creatures acquire immunity to fear. Others are unaffected by fear attacks for reasons that are not feat immunity.

[Beheld]

FYI: I found a specific example: A character immune to fear cannot be intimidated, but an intelligent undead of construct, or someone under the effect of a mindblank spell can be.

Also, I have no idea where the SRD got the idea that all fear attacks are mind affecting, because neither the PHB nor DMG says that. On to the MM?

Found it, and the SRD is wrong. There are two MM entries for fear effects:


Fear (Su or Sp): Fear attacks can have various effects.
Fear Aura (Su): The use of this ability is a free action. The aura can freeze an opponent (such as a mummy’s despair) or function like the fear spell (for example, the aura of a lich). Other effects are possible. A fear aura is an area effect. The descriptive text gives the size and kind of area.

Fear Cones (Sp) and Rays (Su): These effects usually work like the fear spell.

If a fear effect allows a saving throw, it is a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 fearsome creature’s racial HD + creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects.

And in a separate entry:

Frightful Presence (Ex): This special quality makes a creature’s very presence unsettling to foes. It takes effect automatically when the creature performs some sort of dramatic action (such as charging, attacking, or snarling). Opponents within range who witness the action may become frightened or shaken.

Actions required to trigger the ability are given in the creature’s descriptive text. The range is usually 30 feet, and the duration is usually 5d6 rounds.

This ability affects only opponents with fewer Hit Dice or levels than the creature has. An affected opponent can resist the effects with a successful Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 frightful creature’s racial HD + frightful creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). An opponent that succeeds on the saving throw is immune to that same creature’s frightful presence for 24 hours. Frightful presence is a mind-affecting fear effect.

So both PC fear options that don't call themselves mind affecting, and also Ex Fear (as opposed to Frightful Presence) abilities could be considered to bypass mind affecting immunity. One example of both of those might be the Intimidate Skill, which is both not Su or Sp, and not a monster option, and it seems to work even on mind affecting immune creatures. No idea what others might exist.