Shouldn't fire seeds spell be banned?

[ayvango]

You could accumulate number of them and activate simultaneously doing large amount of burst damage and killing target in one blow (there are substitution metamagic feats for fire immune targets)

[Lapak]

You could accumulate number of them and activate simultaneously doing large amount of burst damage and killing target in one blow (there are substitution metamagic feats for fire immune targets)
Accumulate a large number of them: I suppose, though the duration is going to make that somewhat impractical in actual play.

Activate simultaneously, though? There’s nothing in the description that suggests you can hurl more than one at a time for effect. I mean, if you burn multiple 6th level spells and then use a full attack to hurl a couple per round, you could do a fair bit of damage, but nothing out of line for a caster with multiple 6th-level slots.

[ayvango]

Activate simultaneously, though? There’s nothing in the description that suggests you can hurl more than one at a time for effect. I mean, if you burn multiple 6th level spells and then use a full attack to hurl a couple per round, you could do a fair bit of damage, but nothing out of line for a caster with multiple 6th-level slots.
The spell just enchants 8 holly berries per cast. How would you deliver them to the foes is up to you - they are activated with command word. So burn all your slots for enchanting holly berries, summon natural ally monkey give it bag with berries and send it to the enemy. Then activate.

The problem is that hit points raises linearly with HD. Or slightly better for improving Con score. But CR is exponent, so killing one fearsome monster of 8xHD is much profitable then killing ten smaller monster of just HD. Concentration of effort - what matters. The same cause why breaking action economy is so good.

And fire seeds breaks it too much



I suppose, though the duration is going to make that somewhat impractical in actual play.

Unfortunately there is one-use item that could increase duration from 10 min / lvl to 7 days / 4 levels.

Fortunately Unguent of Timelessness is already banned for all loopholes it derives. There is too many "any matter that was once alive" that could be applied to. Quarterstaff is perfect example of it. So you could use short-lived bufs for days and made uber-weapon very cheap.

Unguent of Timelessness

[The Viscount]

You could just have gentleman's agreement that it would be allowed so long as the players agree not to get crazy with it.
If you are banning it, I expect you would also want to ban fire shuriken for similar reasons.

[Malroth]

And explosive runes, And Sepia snake sigil, and Illusionary script, And Symbol of (*), And items of spell storing And craft contigent spell.

[frogglesmash]

And explosive runes, And Sepia snake sigil, and Illusionary script, And Symbol of (*), And items of spell storing And craft contigent spell.

It seems like the real problem is downtime, therefore it stands to reason that any prudent DM would ban it outright.

[ayvango]

It seems like the real problem is downtime, therefore it stands to reason that any prudent DM would ban it outright.
wizards use downtime to inscribe spells in their spellbook. Banning downtime is close to banning wizards.

And what kind of crazy world you live in if any people in it could not have day or two rest and should fight continuously? Or do you discriminate player characters among people and made only them fighting? It has little sense. If there are civilians then party should also has downtime.

Party might lose opportunity to catch some good chance and good wealth, but they should decide whether they would like to take bait or let it go. After all if they have previously entire month without downtime, there is no deficiency in adventures, so they could decline one or two.

[MesiDoomstalker]

wizards use downtime to inscribe spells in their spellbook. Banning downtime is close to banning wizards.

And what kind of crazy world you live in if any people in it could not have day or two rest and should fight continuously? Or do you discriminate player characters among people and made only them fighting? It has little sense. If there are civilians then party should also has downtime.

Party might lose opportunity to catch some good chance and good wealth, but they should decide whether they would like to take bait or let it go. After all if they have previously entire month without downtime, there is no deficiency in adventures, so they could decline one or two.

Blue text means sarcasm. Frogglesmash was not serious and pointing out a flaw in thinking Fire Seeds is unique in its brokeness by being abuseable with downtime.

[Deophaun]

wizards use downtime to inscribe spells in their spellbook. Banning downtime is close to banning wizards.
You don't ban wizards? :smallconfused:

[ayvango]

And explosive runes, And Sepia snake sigil, and Illusionary script, And Symbol of (*), And items of spell storing And craft contigent spell.
Sepia snake sigil needs little fix. It is already limited to 25 words, so addition requirement would be 25 words distance between closest sigils. You could not stuck sigils: if creature fails save it is unable to read next sigil, if save is successful then character would cease reading to avoid further magic traps and dispel them from the writing. And as a magic trap it costs a lot.

Illusionary script is not free too. And it could not be staked. So normal precautions for magic traps would pass.

Explosive runes are the same, but you should restrict their density. So they could not be activated all at once by an immune reader. Another obvious fix is to limit full damage distance to 5ft, or else someone could creatively put colossal runes on top of a mountain and kill reader miles away from them.

Symbols should also take two patches. First is to limit them only to large objects, so you could not write them on a book. Only on a table, floor, or wall. Second no two symbols could be formed in the same 5ft square. If you move one on top of the second, then only single random symbol would be activated. Standard in-game convention for all magical traps.

Easy. Could not invent something so simple for the Fire Seeds spell. The downtime is not a problem but excessive concentration.

[ayvango]

You don't ban wizards? :smallconfused:
It would be too impolite for the D&D creators.

[Deophaun]

Explosive runes are the same, but you should restrict their density. So they could not be activated all at once by an immune reader. Another obvious fix is to limit full damage distance to 5ft, or else someone could creatively put colossal runes on top of a mountain and kill reader miles away from them.
Obvious fix for explosive runes is to have them trigger in sequence, not in parallel, which means the first one to trigger destroys the rest, preventing them from exploding.

It would be too impolite for the D&D creators.
Why would TSR be offended?

[Necroticplague]

The spell just enchants 8 holly berries per cast. How would you deliver them to the foes is up to you - they are activated with command word. So burn all your slots for enchanting holly berries, summon natural ally monkey give it bag with berries and send it to the enemy. Then activate.

Except the holly berry bomb doesn't scale very well with CL, so you'll have to burn a dispraportionate amount of spell slots to make this do a servicable amount of damage. By the time you can cast Fire Seeds, a simply Fireball will do more damage over a larger area. So to do comparable damage, you need to stockpile more holly. So while you can get more burst damage out of this in one action, you pay for it with much more spell slots. This tactic is trading actions for spell slots, and frankly not even at a good ratio.

And while Unguent of Timelessness can let you stockpile more (and making the spell slot cost less relevant), that having to be used after every casting means it can be very expensive to do.

Plus, the fact the slots are 6th level, instead of 3rd level, so having to use more of them is a bigger deal.

[ayvango]

Obvious fix for explosive runes is to have them trigger in sequence, not in parallel, which means the first one to trigger destroys the rest, preventing them from exploding.
The carrier could be tough enough to survive explosions. You could put runes on stone tablet and cast earthfast multiple times on it. So it could endure all damage.

[ayvango]

Except the holly berry bomb doesn't scale very well with CL, so you'll have to burn a dispraportionate amount of spell slots to make this do a servicable amount of damage. By the time you can cast Fire Seeds, a simply Fireball will do more damage over a larger area.

Fireball: 10d6 with 35 mean
Fire seeds: 8x(11+d8) with 124 mean.

[CharonsHelper]

The carrier could be tough enough to survive explosions. You could put runes on stone tablet and cast earthfast multiple times on it. So it could endure all damage.

The runes themselves could easily be destroyed even if the stone tablet isn't. They'r specifically traced on the surface of the object - not carved into it.

[ayvango]

The runes themselves could easily be destroyed even if the stone tablet isn't. They'r specifically traced on the surface of the object - not carved into it.

then make stack of tablets each has one rune, outermost tablet protects inner from explosion. It has fragile bindings to other tablets, keeping it from falling. Explosion destroys bindings and the second layer of runes are ready to read. Reading is no action, so I could invoke entire stack in less then standard action

[Jack_Simth]

You could accumulate number of them and activate simultaneously doing large amount of burst damage and killing target in one blow (there are substitution metamagic feats for fire immune targets)
Well... the holly berry bombs are only dealing 1d8+1/CL (uncapped, but still). Setting them all off at once with someone in range doesn't change that they are treated individually - which means something with even a modest amount of energy resistance to fire (or whatever you substitute) is going to be barely harmed. At, say, 15th, that's 1d8+15 damage per bomb. 1d8 averages 4.5, so 20 points of fire resistance will reduce that to just a handful of points of damage per casting (the bombs that roll 6 deal 1 point, 7 2, 8 3... assuming the victim fails those saves). Sure, you can empower and stuff... but then you're stacking more resources (Ungent of Timelessness costs money, as does a Rod of Empower Spell; sudden metamagic feats cost more build resources, et cetera). A full attack with thrown acorn grenades from multiple castings seems more viable....

[Deophaun]

You could put runes on stone tablet and cast earthfast multiple times on it
Cast earthfast as many times as you want; nothing in the spell's description states that it stacks with itself, so it doesn't.

then make stack of tablets each has one rune, outermost tablet protects inner from explosion. It has fragile bindings to other tablets, keeping it from falling. Explosion destroys bindings and the second layer of runes are ready to read. Reading is no action, so I could invoke entire stack in less then standard action
A) Obviously this is a cancer mage with the Str score necessary to carry around an arbitrary amount of accessible stone tablets
B) What's the action to clear off the dust and rubble to make the runes "ready to read?"

[frogglesmash]

Well... the holly berry bombs are only dealing 1d8+1/CL (uncapped, but still). Setting them all off at once with someone in range doesn't change that they are treated individually - which means something with even a modest amount of energy resistance to fire (or whatever you substitute) is going to be barely harmed. At, say, 15th, that's 1d8+15 damage per bomb. 1d8 averages 4.5, so 20 points of fire resistance will reduce that to just a handful of points of damage per casting (the bombs that roll 6 deal 1 point, 7 2, 8 3... assuming the victim fails those saves). Sure, you can empower and stuff... but then you're stacking more resources (Ungent of Timelessness costs money, as does a Rod of Empower Spell; sudden metamagic feats cost more build resources, et cetera). A full attack with thrown acorn grenades from multiple castings seems more viable....

Fun fact, energy resistance mitigates a damage per round, and not per attack.

A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type each round.
Emphasis mine.


I don't know anyone who runs it this way, but that's technically how it works.

[Baby Gary]

Fun fact, energy resistance mitigates a damage per round, and not per attack.

Emphasis mine.


I don't know anyone who runs it this way, but that's technically how it works.

Hmm... I never knew that, I'm defiantly going to make sure to remember that

[ericgrau]

Sounds a lot like command word magic items and trying to key multiple magic items to the same command word. It's a standard action per item regardless of what you try to do. Even if it seems like saying 1 word should be a lot quicker than that. It's likely a standard action per spell regardless too. It's not a free action like other speaking.

It also seems similar to multi-item stacking in general. You try to stack 100 of them, yet total immersion in the same substance only does 10d6 or 20d6. It's more likely that you can't assume they stack that way. Otherwise you'll have to start banning alchemist's fire too.

I tried to look at the stacking rules and the closest I found was this:


Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths

In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.
You could try to argue that explosive runes detonating would be an instantaneous spell effect, but it doesn't really say that. At worst multiple explosive runes are purely redundant and you still only roll damage once.

In any case it seems like multiple fire seed spells are activated separately.

Regardless it seems like the intent for both spells and other trap spells is for only 1 spell to affect a location at a time. How that is accomplished is a bit fuzzy. But it's most likely that multiple castings are redundant similar to how most other spells work; you don't get any more effect than you would from 1 spell.

[zergling.exe]

Fun fact, energy resistance mitigates a damage per round, and not per attack.

Emphasis mine.


I don't know anyone who runs it this way, but that's technically how it works.

I'm not sure which rulebook that is from. Source aside from the SRD for that line? PHB, DMG, MM, and the RC all agree that energy resistance works per attack, not per round.


Hmm... I never knew that, I'm defiantly going to make sure to remember that

I believe that line has circulated the forum before, but I forget where it came from. Regardless, it goes against all 4 sources of energy resistance I could find on a quick search.

[ericgrau]

Fun fact, energy resistance mitigates a damage per round, and not per attack.

Emphasis mine.


I don't know anyone who runs it this way, but that's technically how it works.
Which directly contradicts what the spell resist energy says. So I thought I'd check rules compendium and it says each time you take damage. It looks like a mistake that never got fixed in the original rules.

[ayvango]

Well... the holly berry bombs are only dealing 1d8+1/CL (uncapped, but still). Setting them all off at once with someone in range doesn't change that they are treated individually - which means something with even a modest amount of energy resistance to fire (or whatever you substitute) is going to be barely harmed. At, say, 15th, that's 1d8+15 damage per bomb. 1d8 averages 4.5, so 20 points of fire resistance will reduce that to just a handful of points of damage per casting (the bombs that roll 6 deal 1 point, 7 2, 8 3... assuming the victim fails those saves).
I always could metamagic resistance off. You can consider that half of damage is divine/profane.

[ayvango]

Cast earthfast as many times as you want; nothing in the spell's description states that it stacks with itself, so it doesn't.

earthfast is instantaneous (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22690713&postcount=722)

[ayvango]

Fun fact, energy resistance mitigates a damage per round, and not per attack.

Emphasis mine.


I don't know anyone who runs it this way, but that's technically how it works.
It make sense for fire dominant places where you get damage per time, not per strike. So even fire resist 5 would protect absolutely for per attack case. And for per round case it would be overwhelmed by every second damage summed up.

[tiercel]

The subject gains energy resistance 10 against the energy type chosen, meaning that each time the creature is subjected to such damage (whether from a natural or magical source), that damage is reduced by 10 points before being applied to the creature’s hit points.

SRD wording is the same (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resistEnergy.htm).



resistance to energy: A creature with resistance to an energy type ignores a certain amount of damage dealt by that energy type each time it is dealt.






The armor absorbs the first 10 points of acid damage per attack that the wearer would normally take (similar to the resist energy spell).

(Other energy resistance armor properties worded the same way.). SRD wording is the same (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#acidResistance).



Each time the wearer would normally take such damage, subtract the ring’s resistance value from the damage dealt.

SRD wording is the same (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#energyResistance).



Resistance to Energy (Ex): A creature with this special quality ignores some damage of the indicated type each time it takes damage of that kind (commonly acid, cold, fire, or electricity).

SRD wording is different (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#resistanceToEnergy) “has the ability to ignore some damage of a certain type each round“.



A creature that has resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain energy type each time it takes damage of that type.


So at least with the versions of the books I have, energy resistance appears to be consistently per attack. The SRD version appears to be inconsistent with everything in the SRD that actually uses energy resistance.

[Fizban]

The SRD's "Special Abilities" section is taken from the DMG, which has some legacy entries that don't actually apply to monsters since they're overwritten by the Monster Manual (which also still has a version of Spell Immunity that nothing uses). If you check a printed 3.5 DMG (page 298), it has the per round version of Resistance to Energy, and there's no errata for it. d20srd.org has the DMG list of special abilities (you can tell from the poison table being there as well), and they include errata, and presumably any missing things that are in the MM only, but they've got the wrong Resistance to Energy up- they also don't include any Rules Compendium changes either. Incidentally, there are also plenty of other entries on the srd with errors, and other first party books that ignore errata (I'm looking at you Eberron and your ride-able Deinonychus).

Ericgrau got the "word of command" problem already, I'll note that even if you try to say its a spell instead of a magic item then the DM can still hit you with a move action for concentrating on a spell. Nothing in Fire Seeds says you can trigger multiple copies of the spell off at once.

For char-op purposes, if you want to suicide bomb without taking damage from these spells you've specifically set up to ignore resistances, Spell Immunity is what you want: infinite SR vs the chosen spells.

[zergling.exe]

The SRD's "Special Abilities" section is taken from the DMG, which has some legacy entries that don't actually apply to monsters since they're overwritten by the Monster Manual (which also still has a version of Spell Immunity that nothing uses). If you check a printed 3.5 DMG (page 298), it has the per round version of Resistance to Energy, and there's no errata for it. d20srd.org has the DMG list of special abilities (you can tell from the poison table being there as well), and they include errata, and presumably any missing things that are in the MM only, but they've got the wrong Resistance to Energy up- they also don't include any Rules Compendium changes either. Incidentally, there are also plenty of other entries on the srd with errors, and other first party books that ignore errata (I'm looking at you Eberron and your ride-able Deinonychus).

My DMG says it's per attack:
A janni can ignore the first 10 points of fire damage it takes each attack.

[Fizban]

My DMG says it's per attack:
On the second line of the second paragraph. The third line of the first paragraph says per round. The Monster manual doesn't use this structure, but d20srd.org does, while it completely removed the Janni example, and it's that example that includes the "per attack" definition.

So the printed version contradicts itself, and d20srd.org removed the contradiction which happened to be the correct part of the rule, and didn't replace the monster abilities with the MM versions even though the MM has priority.

*Unless the newest runs of the 3.5 DMG got that fixed too- I bought a set of the reprints a while back but they're still in their shiny wrappers.

[Khedrac]

Looking at an online SRD (http://dndsrd.net/) the "Special Abilities" section has the "per round" text but is a fairly wooly-worded defnition, the "Monsters" "Types, Sub-Types & Special Abilities" section has the carefully worded "per attack" definition, thus even just going on SRD I would rules that the "per attack" interpretation is correct".

As for where the confusion came from, and possibly why some of the definitions appear wrong, 3.0 energy resistance was "per round", it is one of the less known differences to 3.5.

[ayvango]

Nothing in Fire Seeds says you can trigger multiple copies of the spell off at once.
Nothing says it tooks standard action. Talking is free. So you could activate them subsequently.

[Necroticplague]

Fun fact, energy resistance mitigates a damage per round, and not per attack.

Emphasis mine.


I don't know anyone who runs it this way, but that's technically how it works.

Sigh, nobody runs it that way because that’s not how energy resistance works.


resistance to energy
A creature with this special quality (extraordinary) ignores some damage of the indicated type each time it takes damage of that kind (commonly acid, cold, fire, or electricity). The entry indicates the amount and type of damage ignored. For example, a witchknife has resistance to fire 5, so it ignores the first 5 points of fire damage dealt to it anytime it takes fire damage.

[Jack_Simth]

I always could metamagic resistance off. You can consider that half of damage is divine/profane.
Odd... you stopped where you're quoting me just before I said something extremely similar myself. Here... quoting myself, and adding underlinging for the specific bit you apparently missed:

Well... the holly berry bombs are only dealing 1d8+1/CL (uncapped, but still). Setting them all off at once with someone in range doesn't change that they are treated individually - which means something with even a modest amount of energy resistance to fire (or whatever you substitute) is going to be barely harmed. At, say, 15th, that's 1d8+15 damage per bomb. 1d8 averages 4.5, so 20 points of fire resistance will reduce that to just a handful of points of damage per casting (the bombs that roll 6 deal 1 point, 7 2, 8 3... assuming the victim fails those saves). Sure, you can empower and stuff... but then you're stacking more resources (Ungent of Timelessness costs money, as does a Rod of Empower Spell; sudden metamagic feats cost more build resources, et cetera). A full attack with thrown acorn grenades from multiple castings seems more viable....

And, of course, there's also a few other bits:
1) Anything you can do, so can the DM. Do you want to face such bits of optimization yourself?
2) The "Command Word" bit may very well mean that you can't set off multiple castings simultaneously that way (as noted by ericgrau (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22780534&postcount=22)).
3) The acorn gernade version is a lot less iffy. Make several castings of Acorn Gernades (one gernade each, maxed), hand them to your TWF quickdraw thrown weapon Minion (err... fellow PC), and you're pretty much set. Additionally, that route is easier for other players to swallow, as you're enabling them and they're rolling the dice.

[JustIgnoreMe]

An example from my local larp:

The command word for the first Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!'
The command word for the second Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidoughsh!'
The command word for the third Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidough!'
The command word for the fourth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpiali!'
The command word for the fifth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpial!'
The command word for the sixth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpia!'
The command word for the seventh Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpi!'
The command word for the eighth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticex!'
The command word for the ninth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilistic!'
The command word for the tenth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilist!'
The command word for the eleventh Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragile!'
The command word for the twelfth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifraj!'
The command word for the thirteenth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercaliff!'
The command word for the fourteenth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercali!'
The command word for the fifteenth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercal!'

The word "'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!" sets off all fifteen, one after the other, fifteenth first and first last. Takes less than two seconds.

[Zombimode]

An example from my local larp:

The command word for the first Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!'
The command word for the second Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidoughsh!'
The command word for the third Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidough!'
The command word for the fourth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpiali!'
The command word for the fifth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpial!'
The command word for the sixth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpia!'
The command word for the seventh Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpi!'
The command word for the eighth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticex!'
The command word for the ninth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilistic!'
The command word for the tenth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilist!'
The command word for the eleventh Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragile!'
The command word for the twelfth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifraj!'
The command word for the thirteenth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercaliff!'
The command word for the fourteenth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercali!'
The command word for the fifteenth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercal!'

The word "'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!" sets off all fifteen, one after the other, fifteenth first and first last. Takes less than two seconds.

Only if you make certain assumptions on how the command word is checked*. Since the rule do not provide any details, for this to work the DM must already be OK with triggering more than one Fireseed/what-have-you at the same time. It won't help you on a RAW case.


*To elaborate: if the command word checks for equality, uttering "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" would only set of one Deleyed FIREBALL because only "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" is identical to "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious".
Concerning 3.5: you actually can't set of a Magic item trough a command word accidentally. If the command word is "irk" you wont activate the item simply by saying "dirk". So for 3.5 something like this won't work by RAW.

[ericgrau]

Nothing says it tooks standard action. Talking is free. So you could activate them subsequently.
Unless word of command works like a command word magic item. Such can be accidentally activated in normal conversation, and yet activating them is still a standard action. So the action type to trigger the spell is maybe a standard action or maybe undefined. Not necessarily a free action.

Most likely when it says word of command it's referring to the same command word as magic items (a standard action), but like many editing mishaps it's not clear. Heck they never did correct the energy resistance thing in the PHB nor the SRD even though the PHB glossary, the resist energy spell and rules compendium all did. And now we're up to 5e so it probably never will be clarified. But most people I googled seem to assume fire seeds command word is a standard action and energy resistance is per hit, so that may be part of the reason for the laziness for this and many other rules. Assuming this is the case, just like you can't activate multiple magic items with just one standard action you couldn't activate multiple spells with just one either.

Like many unclear rules it is "undefined" or "probably such and such", not "whatever I want it to be just because it doesn't say yes/no 100%".

[Goaty14]

Nothing says it tooks standard action. Talking is free. So you could activate them subsequently.

Your DM can still rule the amount of free actions you can take in a round reasonably, so you could do that, except DM intervention is explicitly allowed.
(Then again, when is DM intervention not allowed?)

[ayvango]

Odd... you stopped where you're quoting me just before I said something extremely similar myself. Here... quoting myself, and adding underlinging for the specific bit you apparently missed:
consecrate spell differs from empower since it could avoid fire immunity and costs less levels.



1) Anything you can do, so can the DM. Do you want to face such bits of optimization yourself?

I perfectly understand that part. That is why the topic called "shouldn't fire seeds spell be banned". Something that breaks game mechanics should be banned. It would be used by PC and NPC to smash the game.

Smart caster (Int 18) are on par with giantitp optimization hive mind. Intelligence focused caster (Int 26) would find game breaking opportunities in seconds where giantitp would spent years. You could not say "just pretend that you noticed nothing". Wizards are feared so much not only for powerful magic they wield but for limitless cunning he displays in using of that limited resource of power.

[Jack_Simth]

consecrate spell differs from empower since it could avoid fire immunity and costs less levels.There's a reason I had several different things listed plus "et cetera".


Side note: You seem very fond of cutting out arguments when you're replying. You've treated me that way a few times, so via platinum rule, clearly you wish to be treated that way as well. Here you go.

[ayvango]

There's a reason I had several different things listed plus "et cetera".
Honestly speaking, I take another et cetera route for maximize metamagic feat: empower, twin, repeating, split ray, etc. Something that have significant costs and significantly improved damage output. Something to convert 3rd level spells to damage pulverizer worth of 12th level slot, but placed in 8th level.

There is another line of feats that does not improve damage but conditionally overcome damage reduction. Energy substitution, searing spell, consecrate spell, etc.

This two etceteras looks different for me, but is highly optional, I beliуve everyone has its own way of understanding etcetera expansion.



Side note: You seem very fond of cutting out arguments when you're replying. You've treated me that way a few times, so via platinum rule, clearly you wish to be treated that way as well. Here you go.

I only wish to avoid overquoting and past only those arguments that I have doubt in. There is no objections to other parts.

[Jack_Simth]

I only wish to avoid overquoting and past only those arguments that I have doubt in. There is no objections to other parts....

You're fine with variations on "Because it's a command-word, it takes a standard action, so you can only set off one spell's set at a time" as a solution, yet still argue it should be banned? I'm confused.

[ayvango]

...

You're fine with variations on "Because it's a command-word, it takes a standard action, so you can only set off one spell's set at a time" as a solution, yet still argue it should be banned? I'm confused.

Well, two posts before I wrote "Nothing says it tooks standard action" and you says the opposite. It is pretty useless to argue since me have not matched presuppositions and would likely keep our beliefs with us.

In that particular case banning could be efficiently replaced with nerfing: activating bombs require standard action. Pretty obvious solution. The spell is still usable but less broken than I have it imagined and likely less usable that its designers were imaging.

[Baby Gary]

Well, two posts before I wrote "Nothing says it tooks standard action" and you says the opposite. It is pretty useless to argue since me have not matched presuppositions and would likely keep our beliefs with us.

In that particular case banning could be efficiently replaced with nerfing: activating bombs require standard action. Pretty obvious solution. The spell is still usable but less broken than I have it imagined and likely less usable that its designers were imaging.

However @jask_smith had more reliable in game evidence. I side with it taking a standard action to say the command word because that is how it works for other magic items.

[ayvango]

However @jask_smith had more reliable in game evidence. I side with it taking a standard action to say the command word because that is how it works for other magic items.


Armor of Blurring - swift command
Armor of Displacement - swift command
Binding Weapon - swift command
Acrobat Boots - swift command

You could find many times more in the Magic Item Compendium


Banishing Weapon - free command
Bloodfeeding Weapon - free command
Ankh of Ascention - free command
Bracers of Great Collision - free command

the same place

There are ton of spells that allows command for activating, some of them specify no particular action cost, other explicitly states it is free action: Familiar Pocket, Gutsnake. There are that of standard action of course. But it is not the only option.

[Ashtagon]

Close-reading the spell description in the d20 SRD, and assuming a 12th level vanilla druid...

You have 2 spells, and the duration is 2 hours. (A 20th level druid would have four 6th level spells, with a duration of 3 hours 20 minutes each spell; in principle, they could fill their higher level spell slots with fie seeds too, for a total of 16 castings of the spell, although that's a poor use of the spell slots)

Acorn Grenades: A ranged touch attack roll is required. That means you're using a standard action each time you attack with the spell, dealing 12d6 (average 42) damage (assuming you put all the energy from a single casting into a single acorn). That's level-appropriate damage.

Holly Berry Bombs: Each berry does 1d8+12 fire damage (1d8+20 at 20th level). in a five-foot radius. If you place all eight berries from a casting in the same spot, that's 8d8+96 damage (average 132). It's only a 5-foot radius, but still... it's a lot. (At 20th level, a single casting produces 1d8+20 fire damage, or 8d+160 (ave. 196) if all are placed together).

Based on the precedent set by meteor swarm, the damage from multiple seeds made from one casting would stack.


I think the acorn grenade portion is fine, but the berry bombs are OP. Especially, as someone suggested, if you put a it in the hands of an expendable monkey. I wouldn't allow for multiple castings to be triggered with the same command word though, and I would rule that the seeds from the casting that wasn't triggered would be destroyed and wasted if they were on the body of the monkey carrying the first triggered casting. Still, SNA allows you to conjure up multiple monkeys.

[ayvango]

I think the acorn grenade portion is fine, but the berry bombs are OP. Especially, as someone suggested, if you put a it in the hands of an expendable monkey. I wouldn't allow for multiple castings to be triggered with the same command word though, and I would rule that the seeds from the casting that wasn't triggered would be destroyed and wasted if they were on the body of the monkey carrying the first triggered casting. Still, SNA allows you to conjure up multiple monkeys.
What does OP mean? I could deduce from context, but still curios.

The monkey was my first thought. At that time I assumed that it could be activated freely. But if you really need spent fair amount of time to activate the item then I would prefer small fire elemental. It could speak, so it could activate bomb in my place saving my actions. It is immune to fire so it would not be affected by the detonation as well as carried items. Well, if you need spent command action for each grenade pack then use SNA 4 (or 3 if you have the summoning ring), summon bunch of elementals. send one to explode and use other's standard actions to activate bombs one after another. AFAIK small elemental is the cheapest speaking summon.

[Ashtagon]

In this context, OP = overpowered.


What does OP mean? I could deduce from context, but still curios.

The monkey was my first thought. At that time I assumed that it could be activated freely. But if you really need spent fair amount of time to activate the item then I would prefer small fire elemental. It could speak, so it could activate bomb in my place saving my actions. It is immune to fire so it would not be affected by the detonation as well as carried items. Well, if you need spent command action for each grenade pack then use SNA 4 (or 3 if you have the summoning ring), summon bunch of elementals. send one to explode and use other's standard actions to activate bombs one after another. AFAIK small elemental is the cheapest speaking summon.

The spell can only be activated (command word spoken) by the caster. You can't just have an intelligent summon call out the command word. (Also, I'd rule that the fire elmental's own body would ignite stuff it is carrying.)

[ayvango]

In this context, OP = overpowered.
What a handful abbreviation. You always could put OP and let reader substitute it to his liking either as overpowered or as overpriced. And there is also outpaced that comes to mind.

[Calthropstu]

I used this spell in pathfinder a lot on my fire oracle. I used myself as the delivery device since I had high enough fire resistance.
Cast, move explode killing just about anything but me in a 5 foot radius.
And it's not just one reflex save either. It is 1 save per berry. So even high level rogues are likely going to feel it.

Great spell, possible to abuse. Ban the abuse, not the spell. Easy fix, force the caster to use the berries before casting again.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It's not that overpowered. Sure, i does more damage out of the box than most other options, but as a tradeoff the area is pitiful, it needs point-blank range, it's significantly affected by even minor resistance to fire and it scales very poorly with metamagic. Also anything that flies or has reach is very hard to affect.

It's one of the few blasting spells that's worth using (sometimes) for a non-blaster (read: someone without metamagic to make blasting worthwhile) imo. A dedicated blaster can get more damage out of a 6th level slot with less hassle, better area, higher range and none of the drawbacks.
It's basically sacrificing a 6th level slot to make the old "give an Unseen Servant a bag full of alchemical fire" trick marginally more effective.

Not to mention that said druid could've just cast Control Winds and called a tornado, used SNA VI to call an Oread etc.
So even if Fire Seeds works one enemy getting incinerated is getting of very lightly compared to what that action/spell slot could've been used for instead.


But if you really need spent fair amount of time to activate the item
You don't.

If you are within 200 feet and speak a word of command, each berry instantly bursts into flame,
One command word explodes all the berries (from that casting, presumably). It's right in the spell description.

[noob]

It's not that overpowered. Sure, i does more damage out of the box than most other options, but as a tradeoff the area is pitiful, it needs point-blank range, it's significantly affected by even minor resistance to fire and it scales very poorly with metamagic. Also anything that flies or has reach is very hard to affect.

It's one of the few blasting spells that's worth using (sometimes) for a non-blaster (read: someone without metamagic to make blasting worthwhile) imo. A dedicated blaster can get more damage out of a 6th level slot with less hassle, better area, higher range and none of the drawbacks.
It's basically sacrificing a 6th level slot to make the old "give an Unseen Servant a bag full of alchemical fire" trick marginally more effective.

Not to mention that said druid could've just cast Control Winds and called a tornado, used SNA VI to call an Oread etc.
So even if Fire Seeds works one enemy getting incinerated is getting of very lightly compared to what that action/spell slot could've been used for instead.


You don't.

One command word explodes all the berries (from that casting, presumably). It's right in the spell description.
in fact since it says when you speak a word of command(and not one particular word of command) then it could trigger against your will when you use any command word(including the ones for your magical items)

[sleepyphoenixx]

in fact since it says when you speak a word of command(and not one particular word of command) then it could trigger against your will when you use any command word(including the ones for your magical items)

If you're deliberately going for the counter-intuitive, clunky and annoying interpretation that makes absolutely no sense to use then yes, it could mean that.
Since the general assumption is that your DM is mostly sane though? Not really. The word of command is pretty well implied to be spell-specific and there's no reason at all to rule otherwise.

[ayvango]

A dedicated blaster can get more damage out of a 6th level slot with less hassle, better area, higher range and none of the drawbacks.

Not to mention that said druid could've just cast Control Winds and called a tornado, used SNA VI to call an Oread etc.

The problem is not efficient slot usage but concentration of damage. You could cast it multiple times and detonate at once. So you could defeat opponent many levels stronger then you. The solution is to make that command tied not to item but to caster and consume actions. And you always could use Unguent of Timelessness to cast spell in downtime and use latter.



One command word explodes all the berries (from that casting, presumably).

The question was could one command activate all the berries from multiple casting. Or could you somehow issue number of commands in the same round.

[Calthropstu]

The problem is not efficient slot usage but concentration of damage. You could cast it multiple times and detonate at once. So you could defeat opponent many levels stronger then you. The solution is to make that command tied not to item but to caster and consume actions. And you always could use Unguent of Timelessness to cast spell in downtime and use latter.


The question was could one command activate all the berries from multiple casting. Or could you somehow issue number of commands in the same round.

GM interpretation is the answer to that. If the GM interprets it that you can, you can. If not, you can't. I would rule not.
I reiterate, ban the abuse, not the spell.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The problem is not efficient slot usage but concentration of damage. You could cast it multiple times and detonate at once. So you could defeat opponent many levels stronger then you. The solution is to make that command tied not to item but to caster and consume actions. And you always could use Unguent of Timelessness to cast spell in downtime and use latter.


The question was could one command activate all the berries from multiple casting. Or could you somehow issue number of commands in the same round.
The command is already tied to the caster.
And you could solve much of the problem simply by banning Unguent of Timelessness (seriously, are there any non-broken uses for that stuff?).
Not that it'd help much. There are tons of ways to kill opponents many levels stronger than you, as this forum (among others) has repeatedly shown. 3.5 is notoriously breakable that way.

The way around that isn't to ban things or invent tons of houserules, it's for groups to agree to a level of power they're comfortable with and abiding by a gentlemans agreement to not break the game in half.
It's in fact the only way to actually play, otherwise you'll spend all your sessions arguing bans and houserules.

[Aimeryan]

I would go with a separate command word per spell. You say the command word, all berries from that spell detonate. Any berries from other spell castings that are caught in the explosion take damage and unravel harmlessly.

[ayvango]

I would go with a separate command word per spell. You say the command word, all berries from that spell detonate. Any berries from other spell castings that are caught in the explosion take damage and unravel harmlessly.
What action do you designate to command activation: standard, swift or free?
Could activation command be passed to another creature?

[Aimeryan]

What action do you designate to command activation: standard, swift or free?
Could activation command be passed to another creature?

Free, and yes.

[Cosi]

In response to the OP, you don't need to ban it. Or rather, it is very low on the list of things you need to ban. It kills a dude. Maybe a couple dudes. Unless those dudes are immune to fire, or otherwise resistant to the spell. Killing a dude is just not all that impressive of a thing to do. TO tricks are things like infinite armies or total immunity to damage. The ability to win a fight under several different restrictions, with prep is just not all that impressive by those standards. It's probably not even better than Ubercharging.


An example from my local larp:

The command word for the first Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!'
The command word for the second Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidoughsh!'
The command word for the third Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidough!'
The command word for the fourth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpiali!'
The command word for the fifth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpial!'
The command word for the sixth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpia!'
The command word for the seventh Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticexpi!'
The command word for the eighth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilisticex!'
The command word for the ninth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilistic!'
The command word for the tenth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragilist!'
The command word for the eleventh Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifragile!'
The command word for the twelfth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercalifraj!'
The command word for the thirteenth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercaliff!'
The command word for the fourteenth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercali!'
The command word for the fifteenth Delayed Blast Fireball is 'Supercal!'

The word "'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!" sets off all fifteen, one after the other, fifteenth first and first last. Takes less than two seconds.

Only if you make certain assumptions on how the command word is checked*. Since the rule do not provide any details, for this to work the DM must already be OK with triggering more than one Fireseed/what-have-you at the same time. It won't help you on a RAW case.

The real point is that the action of the command word is whatever that action is. Your command word can be as long or as short as you want and can overlap with as many or as few other command words as you want. You still only activate one per action. Your "command word" could be a recitation of the entire Oxford English Dictionary. It still wouldn't save you anything on activating more than one item.

[Ashtagon]

What action do you designate to command activation: standard, swift or free?
Could activation command be passed to another creature?


Free, and yes.

By RAW, the command word for fire seeds may only been spoken by the caster.

Assuming it follows the same command word activation rules as magic items generally, the command word must be a standard action (reasonable assumption, as command words are not defined in the spells section, but are in the magic items section of the SRD).

[ayvango]

Assuming it follows the same command word activation rules as magic items generally, the command word must be a standard action
I had post already bunch of examples from the MIC where command word activation take less time then standard action. Should I post more?

[Hal0Badger]

I had post already bunch of examples from the MIC where command word activation take less time then standard action. Should I post more?

The spells you showed create exceptions for those command word activation. In the absence of that exception, following the general rule would be the most logical choice.

[Aimeryan]

The spells you showed create exceptions for those command word activation. In the absence of that exception, following the general rule would be the most logical choice.

I agree with ayvango that without it stating an action, and without an action to inherit from, then the action is free.

As for whether another could command detonate them, I agree by RAW that it only states the caster is capable of doing this - as I was asked, however, I would allow another to command activate.


The other option is treat them as magic items, although no where is it stated that this is the case:


Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise.


Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.

Bolded for emphasis. So, standard action, can be activated by anyone who knows the command word (or guesses it).