Tjeck me on this combo.

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by Josh_Kablack »

This is so obvious I can't believe that

A> I haven't seen it before
or
B> It actually works like I think it does

So I wanted to run it by you guys to see if I'm out on a limb here

SRD wrote:
Spiritual Weapon
Evocation [Force]
Level: Clr 2, War 2
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Magic weapon of force
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
A weapon made of pure force springs into existence and attacks opponents at a distance, as you direct it, dealing 1d8 force damage per hit, +1 point per three caster levels (maximum +5 at 15th level). The weapon takes the shape of a weapon favored by your deity or a weapon with some spiritual significance or symbolism to you (see below) and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a real weapon of its form. It strikes the opponent you designate, starting with one attack in the round the spell is cast and continuing each round thereafter on your turn. It uses your base attack bonus (possibly allowing it multiple attacks per round in subsequent rounds) plus your Wisdom modifier as its attack bonus. It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so, for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction. As a force effect, it can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality. The weapon always strikes from your direction. It does not get a flanking bonus or help a combatant get one. Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon. If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers.
Each round after the first, you can use a move action to redirect the weapon to a new target. If you do not, the weapon continues to attack the previous round’s target. On any round that the weapon switches targets, it gets one attack. Subsequent rounds of attacking that target allow the weapon to make multiple attacks if your base attack bonus would allow it to. Even if the spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, use the spell’s range, not the weapon’s normal range increment, and switching targets still is a move action.
A spiritual weapon cannot be attacked or harmed by physical attacks, but dispel magic, disintegrate, a sphere of annihilation, or a rod of cancellation affects it. A spiritual weapon’s AC against touch attacks is 12 (10 + size bonus for Tiny object).
If an attacked creature has spell resistance, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the spiritual weapon strikes it. If the weapon is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell.


Note that in all cases, the wording is such that "the weapon attacks", and never that the caster attacks.

also SRD wrote:
Sanctuary
Abjuration
Level: Clr 1, Protection 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: No
Any opponent attempting to strike or otherwise directly attack the warded creature, even with a targeted spell, must attempt a Will save. If the save succeeds, the opponent can attack normally and is unaffected by that casting of the spell. If the save fails, the opponent can’t follow through with the attack, that part of its action is lost, and it can’t directly attack the warded creature for the duration of the spell. Those not attempting to attack the subject remain unaffected. This spell does not prevent the warded creature from being attacked or affected by area or effect spells. The subject cannot attack without breaking the spell but may use nonattack spells or otherwise act.


Note that the prohibition is only that "the subject cannot attack".

So am I correct in thinking that Spiritual Weapon is akin to Summon Monster in counting as a "nonattack spell" here?
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
MrWaeseL
Duke
Posts: 1249
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by MrWaeseL »

I think you can. Spiritual weapon qualifies as a nonattack spell because it deals damage indirectly (like summon monster). Besides, it isn't really that awesome, IMO.
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by Maj »

There are other implications to it, though...

Like dancing weapons.

;)
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
MrWaeseL
Duke
Posts: 1249
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by MrWaeseL »

DAncing is +4, right? By the time you get that, I figure enemies will make their saves or be able to dispell it...
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by Username17 »

That "works" - but it has the Summon Monster Problem in that it doesn't have a meaningful duration and completely sucks.

The attack bonus is small (although mutj larger than in 3rd edition, where it doesn't even get your wisdom bonus to attack rolls). By the time you get the spell, its attack bonus is only your BAB + your Wisdom bonus for a weapon that does a d8+1.

That's dumb. That's an attack bonus smaller than your character would have just by swinging your favored weapon around (since it's probably master work, you get flanking bonuses, etc.), and it costs a frickin 2nd level spell slot.

Spiritual Weapon is better in 3.5 than it is in 3rd edition (when it was simply hillarious) - but it still can't hit squat even at medium level.

Dancing Weapons have the same problem - they have an attack bonus so crappy that you wonder why anyone bothers at all.

These effects were all coined when just about everyone relied almost exclusively on their BAB and the maximum AC was 30 (or even 20 when they were first written down). Now that there has been a whole smack load of AC inflation and to-hit bonuses to compensate, these "attack bonus equal BAB" effects are absurd. Most of them hit on a natural 20 at the high end.

-Username17
Thoth_Amon
Journeyman
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by Thoth_Amon »

Sure, but if you are sanctuaried and they failed their save to F with you who cares how lame the damage is? You can baby swat them while you heal yourself.

TA
da_chicken
Journeyman
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by da_chicken »

I probably would allow it. I don't see how it's different from invisibility combined with, say, directing a flaming sphere.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by Username17 »

Sure, but if you are sanctuaried and they failed their save to F with you who cares how lame the damage is? You can baby swat them while you heal yourself.


Those baby swats are so meaningless that they may as well not even be happening.

Regardless, unless you are the only person on your team, this doesn't even really do anything. The enemy can still attack your team, just not you. And honestly, since you are a Cleric, you quite likely have the best AC and saves in the whole party. Which means that if your opponents are attacking other party members, they are probably doing more damage to the party on average than if they were attacking you.

If you are the only person on your team, then your opponents have to contend with essentially meaningless attacks from the Spiritual Weapon while oth sides stand around casting healing spells.

The Sanctuary + Healing Spells strategy was kind of dumb back in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons - when a Cleric could honestly expect to keep up with the damage output of monsters with cure spells. In 3rd edition, monsters do more damage and cure spells essentially don't. If an Orc hits a party member with an axe and you cast a cure spell the Orc is pulling ahead.

Combat healing is a joke. Auxilary spells designed to improve combat healing are even more lame - if that's possible.

The actual healing available to a Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, or Druid is actually all the same between about level 3 and about level 10. This is because the actual healing slots you get are insufficient for your healing needs until somebody picks up the spell "Heal". Further, combat healing is a worthless strategy which is entirely insufficient to one's needs (again, without the spell "Heal").

But Wands of Cure Light Wounds are cheap. Really cheap. And they work for your non-combat healing needs. In practice, so long as you have Cure Light on your spell list at all - your healing capabilities are roughly identical to any other character who has Cure Light on their spell list (provided that noone can cast Heal).

Clerics are no more of a healing engine than Rangers are - they can activate wands of cure light, which means that if they exist at all players can be healed between combats - but their in-combat healing abilities are a snare for the unwary.

-Username17
Thoth_Amon
Journeyman
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by Thoth_Amon »

But I like to roll dice.

TA
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by Username17 »

But I like to roll dice.


This is seriously the strongest argument against playing a Utility Mage, Distractor Mage, Enchanter, or Death Spell junky - you don't actually get to roll dice becuase your opponents roll saves instead.

-Username17
Thoth_Amon
Journeyman
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by Thoth_Amon »

And probably the only reason to play the weakvoker!

TA
Lago_AM3P
Duke
Posts: 1268
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by Lago_AM3P »

The evoker, by the way, showcases one of the blatant discrepencies between arcane and divine spellcasters.

If you didn't believe the druid and cleric were overpowered, try comparing any wizardly evoker even one measly spell level behind against a druid or cleric doing the same thing.

You just can't compete. You have to keep taking wizardly levels or you suck as an evoker, and if there is a party cleric or druid, then you just suck. Unfortunately, these wizardly levels come with a weaker scheme of magic (unless your pantheon is composed of SEVERE psycho hose beasts, arcane magic's secondary mechanics are universally inferior to divine's), worse saves, worse class abilities, almost worse in everything except coming ahead a little bit in spellcasting. Trying to min-max an Eldritch Knight laid these discrepencies bare.

That's not very fair.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by Username17 »

Evocation Magic is not very strong. Like the healing Cleric, they are a casualty of the hit point inflation of 3rd edition.

Consider the example of the Caryatid Column. In Advanced Dungeons and Dragons it had 22 hit points. I'm not even making that number up - that's the whole amount. It's brutal attacks delivered 2-8 points of damage (persumably 2d4, but AD&D liked to make DMs work that kind of thing out for themselves - I'm still wondering how you are supposed to generate 1-9 points of damage). In 3rd edition it has an average of 53 hit points and does a d10+9 with every swing.

And fireball.... does the same damage it always did. Back when a 5th level monster had 22 hit points and a 5th level fireball did an average of 17.5 - it was easy to imagine rolling a bit lucky, having your opponent fail a save, and blowing your opponent away in one shot. But people have more hit points now. Even 3 fireballs in a row, backed up by 3 failed saves, are probably not going to drop the thing. Did I mention that caryatid columns now subtract 8 points of damage from every single fireball that hits them now (they used to have a ghastly mechanic in which non-magical weapons did half damage and magical weapons ignored the "plus" on their weapon for the purposes of calculating damage, but this did not affect spell attacks in any way)?

So yes, Evokers used to be good, and now they are lame. Lame in a way which is difficult to understand or explain, but it goes like this:

A long time ago, Evokers were very powerful and everyone's favorite spell at 3rd level was fireball. It was a signiature spell of wizards, and basically dominated the game. People didn't really have message boards back then, but they would write magazine articles and give speeches to anyone who gave a crap about how "Fireball is over powered!" and "How do I keep Fireball from dominating the game?!" and such. The ATs of the world would come up with bizzarely punitive measures such as having the spell destroy all monster carried treasure in an attempt to curb its use.

Actually of course, this didn't help at all - and you can probably guess why: Magic Users, then as now, didn't really need treasure to function. Having a wand or seven was kind of fun, but not really a requirement. It wasn't like belts of +1 damage on fireball spells were popping out of the woodwork, so Wizards honestly didn't really give a crap whether they got treasure. Further, back then the rules didn't have the Diablo system of gold accumulation being directly transferable into powerful magic items and wizards didn't even care about money (the bizzarely high gold costs for spell scribing were instituted long ago as an attempt to get Wizards to stop using Fireball all the time so they could get treasure - which again backfired because then Wizards couldn't afford spells that weren't Fireball, and the party didn't get wealth particularly and the Wizard solved every problem - with Fireball).

So along comes 2nd edition, and they give a lot of swag to Clerics. After all, what could they possibly do to Clerics that would unbalance them so long as Wizards got Fireball? Well, ignoring the "specialty priests" optional rules in which Clerics could just plain have Fireball if that's what they wanted to do - the Cleric was a second bannana character even so. Combat Healing worked, and you had to prepare healing spells in advance, and wands of cure didn't normally exist - and even if they did you couldn't make them or buy them. So the Cleric pretty much prepped all their spells as cure spells, and went into combat with a craptastic weapon selection, decent armor, and the worst attack bonus of any melee character ("Thieves" had a much better one because they got levels faster - no joke).

So along comes 3rd edition, they do massive revisions to everything, they give more swag to Clerics, and they pretty much leave Magic Users alone, save to rename them "Wizards". After all, what the hell could their problem be, they still get Fireball, right?

But Fireball isn't what it used to be. It doesn't dominate the game, it sucks. A Wizard could spend his whole alotment of Fireballs on one Troll and still probably not kill it (in AD&D, a Troll was considered a hit point monster because it had 6d8+2 hit points or so - something like 29 or 30 on average, which means a 10 die fireball would kill all the trolls in the room, now it just pisses them off).

So the entire game around the Fireball was redesigned - and the game mechanics it had which once made people gibber about brokenness is now crap - and it's still supposed to be the flagship of the Wizard spell list.

---

Interestingly, the Wizard is not useless, he's still really good, especially at low levels (though less so in the 3.5 rules where they nerfed all of the good 1st level attack spells hard). And why? Because in 3rd edition there's been a lot of hit point inflation. People have more hit points, people do more damage. So when the Wizard casts grease or web, or minor image, or whatever and buys the party a round or two to beat the crap out of the enemies, that's huge instead of being retarded. I mean, when you were supposed to be happy because you did a d8+2 when you hit on a 14+ on the d20 and there weren't any criticals - it just wasn't that exciting having a free round of attacks. Now it is.

The Cleric, on the other hand, doesn't get any good combat spells until 2nd level (Wizards took a major hit to Color Spray and Sleep, but they still have Grease) - and even then Hold Person, while extremely powerful, is still only a single target death effect. Web will take out a whole tribe of troglodytes all by itself.

At higher levels, however, the Cleric is basically just like your Wizard but better. The high level Wizard spells aren't amazingly superior to the high level Cleric Spells, and as you've noticed the Cleric is superior in all other ways.

-Username17
User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by Josh_Kablack »

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1079045400[/unixtime]]That "works" - but it has the Summon Monster Problem in that it doesn't have a meaningful duration and completely sucks.

The attack bonus is small (although mutj larger than in 3rd edition, where it doesn't even get your wisdom bonus to attack rolls). By the time you get the spell, its attack bonus is only your BAB + your Wisdom bonus for a weapon that does a d8+1.


At the levels where Spiritual Weapon is combo is going to be meaningful and not just a weird substitute for the cleric having a crossbow, the difference is not prohibitively huge - it's going to be 3 to 5 points of attack bonus in the fighter's favor, which is significant, but not enough to render the spell completely useless given its range and continous uncontrolled attacks while you do other stuff.

The Sanctuary combo here isn't huge, but makes it viable, much as the Invisibility wizard makes the otherwise sucky Summon spells a viable combat option in many cases.

"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Tjeck me on this combo.

Post by Username17 »

The Sanctuary combo here isn't huge, but makes it viable, much as the Invisibility wizard makes the otherwise sucky Summon spells a viable combat option in many cases


I disagree. You start losing when any of your teammates die - the goal here is to keep all of them alive. Reducing the number of targets the enemy can attack by one is in essence increasing the attacks any single party member is subject to by 1/3.

Now you can make a case (although in my opinion a poor one) for taking the wizard off the list of viable targets because he is so fragile. The cleric is not fragile - not by a long shot. In many parties he is the least fragile character.

Taking one of your most durable characters off the market to receive attacks redistributes monster attacks so that more of them fall on the other, probably less durable characters. This increases the chances that any single player character will go down or even die.

This is just dreadful tactics. The fact that you are doing substandard damage in the bargain is merely icing on the cake to the fact that forcing your opponents to concentrate their fire is bad tactics to begin with.

-Username17
Post Reply