Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bob_the_Theurge 03-30-07, 09:18 AM	Okay guys, enough is enough. You complained about players having "too much" power with Holy Word/DSP combination, so that's gone. Now, what do we get? Creatures at 18+ spellcaster level lobbing Blasphemy, because the local triads no longer fear players will "retaliate" with their own high-level shots. Considering that hit dice scale exponentially with CR - it's quite easy to create a CR10 monster that has more than 20 hit dice - the players using these are unlikely. Enough is enough. They're broken. With no save, even a party of entirely level 15 characters gets screwed completely (weakened 2d4 rounds, dazed, and paralyzed 1d10 MINUTES) by an 18th caster level Blasphemy. At APL 14, you drop a 18+ spellcaster level Blasphemy, and on average at least one player at the table just drops dead. It's even sicker when they shoehorn them in so that they have 3-4 critters who can ALL do this. That way, even if you have freedom of movement, the entire party's sitting at 1-2 strength. Been there. Done that. No fun. The only - and I do mean ONLY - way that the party even has a CHANCE to survive this is to have someone with Travel domain or a precast Freedom of Movement. This is retarded. This is game-breaking nonsense. Remove these spells until WotC R&D errata the spells to have a freaking saving throw at the VERY least.
Haro 03-30-07, 09:25 AM	Yawn. Is this tired old topic something you plan on resurrecting every month? If so, let's all put together a schedule so we can all just copy and paste the same arguments over again in the same order. What fun.
Zanzibax 03-30-07, 09:32 AM	Yawn. Is this tired old topic something you plan on resurrecting every month? If so, let's all put together a schedule so we can all just copy and paste the same arguments over again in the same order. What fun. Can you instead just link the old argument and save us some effort?
Bob_the_Theurge 03-30-07, 09:47 AM	Yawn. Is this tired old topic something you plan on resurrecting every month? If so, let's all put together a schedule so we can all just copy and paste the same arguments over again in the same order. What fun. When this was brought up in the LGCS review process, the Circle reps said that the spells weren't "bad" without DSP in the mix. So they took away DSP, which was one of the few ways we still had to counteract all those ridiculous caster level curses. I didn't trust them on that, and now we've got proof: triads are lobbing around 18+ level blasphemies from "advanced" monsters with impunity now that the "cold war" over DSP+HolyWord has been removed by the Circle's unilateral disarmament of only the PC's. Not cool. The way this is going, I might as well just retire my high level characters. Hell, we might as well take it one step further and just say that characters over level 11 just retire automatically, they're all just going to die to some Blasphemy-cheese anyways the moment they step into an Interactive.
solbergb 03-30-07, 09:49 AM	Okay guys, The only - and I do mean ONLY - way that the party even has a CHANCE to survive this is to have someone with Travel domain or a precast Freedom of Movement. Actually neither of those help against the real worry, which is the daze effect (at least for monsters with chain blasphemy) The One True Path to avoiding blasphemy's is to be in a silence field, or out of range. Joyous Noise, silent spell and metamagic rods of silence make this less painful. Or ya know...just letting your fighters do something at high APL.
Bob_the_Theurge 03-30-07, 09:54 AM	Actually neither of those help against the real worry, which is the daze effect (at least for monsters with chain blasphemy) The One True Path to avoiding blasphemy's is to be in a silence field, or out of range. Joyous Noise, silent spell and metamagic rods of silence make this less painful. Or ya know...just letting your fighters do something at high APL. Fighters who are at 0 strength because your triad member dropped 4 blasphemies in the surprise round can't do that very well. Fighters at 3-4 strength are still Heavy Encumbered. Oh! You didn't look at the spell or situation? You fired back some meaningless nonsense instead? Yeah. Thought so.
Bold 03-30-07, 10:05 AM	This is retarded. This is game-breaking nonsense. Huh.... I just learned a new word today. I always assumed (from context) that "theurge" was defined as "whiner". But I just looked it up, and it turns out the actual definition is "one who performs miracles with supernatural assistance". Who knew?! ;) Seriously though, the solution is module editing and triad/circle review. If you have a problem with an encounter, speak with the writer, the triad members, and the circle member. Or if you really are as upset about this game as suggested from your numerous rants, perhaps you could take up a more relaxing hobby?
Maesto 03-30-07, 10:05 AM	The only APL 16 game I've ever played, I had a contingency running that triggered a silence spell from a scroll which activated upon a blasphemy effect within 20 feet of me. Funnily enough, it triggered, but from a DSP cleric ghost. If you're scared of things, find ways to get around them.
solbergb 03-30-07, 10:09 AM	fighters in a silence field are unaffected. Read what I said. Think about it. high level parties have lots of tools to avoid being surprised, should they choose to use them. Every person with a cleric or bard level should have a scroll of silence from about level 3. It can happen. But not at a battle interactive usually, where surprise in close quarters is very rare. I'm not saying advanced half-fiends who still have their blasphemy spell are a good idea or appropriate to blindly scale for CR. That's bad writing, take it up with your triad. We got over that temptation in our metaregionals a couple years ago and you started seeing blasphemy crossed off on any half-fiend whose hit dice were advanced out of the APL rage. But there is a defense, it is well known and it is simple. If you suspect even remotely that a blasphemy might be coming (hint...big, strong melee monsters with red eyes and bat wings...) get that silence field up, or even ready an action to get it up. Blasphemies that drain strength and daze are well within the APL guidelines and you'll face one from time to time. If they're big enough to paralyze anything other than bonded mounts/companions and cohorts playing way up, then the problem is the author, not the spell.
Bob_the_Theurge 03-30-07, 10:09 AM	Huh.... I just learned a new word today. I always assumed (from context) that "theurge" was defined as "whiner". I've just redacted my earlier response. I SUGGEST you do the same. Jerk.
Bob_the_Theurge 03-30-07, 10:11 AM	fighters in a silence field are unaffected. Read what I said. Think about it. high level parties have lots of tools to avoid being surprised, should they choose to use them. Every person with a cleric or bard level should have a scroll of silence from about level 3. It can happen. But not at a battle interactive usually, where surprise in close quarters is very rare. I'm not saying advanced half-fiends who still have their blasphemy spell are a good idea or appropriate to blindly scale for CR. That's bad writing, take it up with your triad. We got over that temptation in our metaregionals a couple years ago and you started seeing blasphemy crossed off on any half-fiend whose hit dice were advanced out of the APL rage. But there is a defense, it is well known and it is simple. If you suspect even remotely that a blasphemy might be coming (hint...big, strong melee monsters with red eyes and bat wings...) get that silence field up, or even ready an action to get it up. Blasphemies that drain strength and daze are well within the APL guidelines and you'll face one from time to time. If they're big enough to paralyze anything other than bonded mounts/companions and cohorts playing way up, then the problem is the author, not the spell. And all of that means exactly JACK in our region, where the triad loves auto-surprise rounds and lighting off multiple advanced half-fiend blasphemies during those surprise rounds. Oh, and don't forget their Dispel Magic ability, too. We've seen a dozen dispels light off in a single round. There goes your silence, especially if it was off of a scroll. Dispel/Blaspheme/Blaspheme/Blaspheme/DEAD CHARACTERS...
Redfist 03-30-07, 10:14 AM	I know this sounds stupid, but hear me out. If your triad really is that abusive, stop playing in their interactives. Convince your friends to do the same. Nothing is worse for an author than to find out he/she wasted time writing what no-one will play. Boycott. If their writing leads to this much frustration for you, this seems like a reasonable approach until your triad learns reason.
vvincent 03-30-07, 10:17 AM	But then he wouldn't have anything to complain about - except maybe Snow Elves and Adobe Acrobat 7.0 I know this sounds stupid, but hear me out. If your triad really is that abusive, stop playing in their interactives. Convince your friends to do the same. Nothing is worse for an author than to find out he/she wasted time writing what no-one will play. Boycott. If their writing leads to this much frustration for you, this seems like a reasonable approach until your triad learns reason.
solbergb 03-30-07, 10:21 AM	Yeah, and same with the autosurprise. We've pretty much killed that off in our region, by mocking judges that do that and ignoring authors who try to write it in (instead using the actual, you know, game mechanics and statblocks for whether they succeed in surprising the party). Peer pressure is a powerful thing, as is leading by example. Tease the judges that do autosurprise mercilessly and DO NOT EVER USE IT WHEN YOU RUN. Judges that have adversarial style can also just be shunned. Don't invite them to run. Don't play at their tables. If your judge pool is too small, take the initiative and train better judges (and be a better judge). Some parties still get surprised. They tend to be the ones that don't actually invest in any scouting, divination or alertness skills. They SHOULD get punished (and/or get a chance to show off how durable they are against a surprise attack, having bought passive defenses instead of "notice the bad guy" abilities) Frankly, if the enemy gets as many actions as you're describing with no PC response, they can vaporize you just fine without blasphemy. I believe half-fiends get horrid wilting too. Why not just toss a dozen of those at the party instead of dispel magic? Follow up with their summon monster 9 minions (precast of course, with ranged attacks or weapons to not be locked out by prot evil). For extra grins,have quicken spell-like ability on the horrid wiltings and maximize spell like ability. Then toss in unholy blight too, just for fun. The author can ALWAYS win. Removal of one spell won't change that.
GreatSiron 03-30-07, 10:23 AM	And all of that means exactly JACK in our region, where the triad loves auto-surprise rounds and lighting off multiple advanced half-fiend blasphemies during those surprise rounds. Oh, and don't forget their Dispel Magic ability, too. We've seen a dozen dispels light off in a single round. There goes your silence, especially if it was off of a scroll. Dispel/Blaspheme/Blaspheme/Blaspheme/DEAD CHARACTERS... Is your triad just TRYING to kill high level PCs? If that's the case, I'd stick to cores, and maybe, if possible, play out of region once in awhile. It's what I often have to do. (Never played a regional where I wasn't shafted).
taylorj 03-30-07, 10:42 AM	And all of that means exactly JACK in our region, where the triad loves auto-surprise rounds and lighting off multiple advanced half-fiend blasphemies during those surprise rounds. Are you somehow prohibited from saying what your region is?
MichaelTLH 03-30-07, 11:48 AM	My guess is he refuses to identify his region because his Triad and/or local players would then be able to refute everything he says. Prove me wrong, BTT. :D
GreatSiron 03-30-07, 12:16 PM	I for one am not scared to admit my region, because everyone who's played the mod Brick and Mortar, or "Broken Murder" as we called it, can attest to the fact that the Yeomanry has some pretty tough mods. Blighted Souls wasn't any fun either. 5 encounters in one day? No thank you.
amnuxoll 03-30-07, 12:35 PM	And all of that means exactly JACK in our region, where the triad loves auto-surprise rounds and lighting off multiple advanced half-fiend blasphemies during those surprise rounds. I don't know what region you're in but I'm certain that's a falsehood and grossly unfair. Triads without exception work hard to make a fun play experience for players. They are volunteers who therefore must be doing their job purely for the satisfaction of serving their player base. Writing mods that indiscriminately and unfairly kill PCs is counterintuitive. If you want folks to stop mocking you for being a whiner, I recommend you base your arguments on facts. You've certainly lost any sympathy you were gonna get from me. :AMN:
bitznarf 03-30-07, 12:37 PM	Maybe he and budleisr (I think I have the nick right) should swap regions, then they can both be happy. Budleisr gets killer mods, and Bob gets easier ones.
Britt 03-30-07, 12:48 PM	I think he wants to try to hide who he is, which is kind of pointless considering everyone who knows him knows his posting name. I find it odd that you had an appeal open with the Appeals GM, a second Triad member and a Circle member at the con the next day, and never mentioned this at all until about 5 days later, at which point you start yelling about how bad it is and attacking anyone that posts anything in response to you. Why the wait? Oh, could it possibly be because you want to attract attention to yourself and really are trolling the forums, rather than actually trying to get a problem addressed? Because if you really were trying to do the latter, you would have dealt with this differently. Your posts are definitely over the line and your justifications that you are responding to uncivil attacks are not true. I will be reporting you (again) to the mods. <sigh>
Sieylianna 03-30-07, 01:02 PM	I for one am not scared to admit my region, because everyone who's played the mod Brick and Mortar, or "Broken Murder" as we called it, can attest to the fact that the Yeomanry has some pretty tough mods. Blighted Souls wasn't any fun either. 5 encounters in one day? No thank you. Wimp. :D In Veluna, we have 5 encounters in one day in an intro module (and it's a one round intro). Ed
Haro 03-30-07, 01:05 PM	Why the wait? Oh, could it possibly be because you want to attract attention to yourself and really are trolling the forums, rather than actually trying to get a problem addressed? Because if you really were trying to do the latter, you would have dealt with this differently. Perhaps the gamer's variant of Munchausen Syndrome? :rolleyes:
solbergb 03-30-07, 01:14 PM	On the main LG list, someone mentioned that Theo Judd, BK triad made a ruling at aggiecon that effectively kicked up the level of blasphemy by several levels. This includes 1. treating the str penalty as damage, instead of a penalty, letting it bring str down to zero from > instead of a max reduction of 12. 2. level 15 chars being paralyzed by a L18 blasphemy. That's a very strange reading of "up to level -5". Yes, if blasphemy actually behaved that way it should perhaps be banned for any use. But it doesn't. Except if the SR DM at a con makes a bad ruling. Speaking as someone who has traveled to the BK, has played about a dozen regional mods (a couple were IUZ mods, hard to keep track) and one interactive, the autosurprise and insta-death encounters was not something I personally witnessed. I did not, however, play at that particular convention and I have heard that BK interactives can get kind of rough at times. The problem here though isn't the spell. It is how the spell was interpreted plus (from one possibly biased opinion, we don't have all the facts) possibly ignoring the rules for encounter suprise and inflicting autosurprise when it might have actually been a "straight initiative" type situation (eg, the monsters plane shift or teleport in. That was their surprise round. To do anything but arrive, they must win initiative too. If they teleported they might also be trapped in an anticipate teleport effect. If plane shifting in from etherial, see invis might have revealed them well beforehand....)
Bob_the_Theurge 03-30-07, 01:26 PM	I think he wants to try to hide who he is, which is kind of pointless considering everyone who knows him knows his posting name. I find it odd that you had an appeal open with the Appeals GM, a second Triad member and a Circle member at the con the next day, and never mentioned this at all until about 5 days later, at which point you start yelling about how bad it is and attacking anyone that posts anything in response to you. Why the wait? Oh, could it possibly be because you want to attract attention to yourself and really are trolling the forums, rather than actually trying to get a problem addressed? Because if you really were trying to do the latter, you would have dealt with this differently. Your posts are definitely over the line and your justifications that you are responding to uncivil attacks are not true. I will be reporting you (again) to the mods. <sigh> You have me confused with someone else.
bitznarf 03-30-07, 01:30 PM	You have me confused with someone else. Then who are you?
Britt 03-30-07, 01:34 PM	You have me confused with someone else. Not bloody likely... Considering Mike Ahlf has a mystic theurge PC named Bob that played in an interactive in the BK last weekend and is complaining about the Triad supposedly using multiple CL 18 Blasphemy spells against the party, you are posting about CL 18 Blasphemy spells used by a Triad member and complaining about your Triad, your handle is Bob_the_Theurge, your posting and Mike's posting coincide, nigh identical topics have been posted by Mike and you on the LG Y! group and here, respectively, at nigh identical times, Mike has been warned in the past for postings on the BK list that are much like your posts here, and many other coincidences in the past between the two posters' topics and events in the BK, I seriously doubt I have the wrong person. It's possible, but not bloody likely :)
Bob_the_Theurge 03-30-07, 01:48 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11935963&postcount=66 Enjoy your witch hunt. I'm out.
Flan 03-30-07, 02:04 PM	Yes, you can get around Blasphemy with silence, but do you want to? Spending the time and effort to counter something like that isn't fun. It has nothing to do with role-playing and it is not a good game-play experience. It's not as if you just have to deal with one broken aspect of the game and can get on with actually playing, Blasphemy is just one example, there are dozens of spells that are blatently broken and need similar precautions. Mind controls, level drains and abilities drains and there are special abilities unique to some monsters and there are situations like auto-surprise. Spending all my time in the game trying to cover every way the mod writer might auto-kill my character sucks. The obvious solution is for the RPGA to not let retarded crap like that into a game in the first place and the easieast way to do it is to simply ban it until WotC figures out how to write a decent magic system that doesn't have this garbage in it.
Britt 03-30-07, 02:20 PM	Be careful with your tone, Flan. Agreeing with Bob is fine, but watch language like "retarded crap" and "garbage", as it promotes a hostile conversation.
GreatSiron 03-30-07, 02:20 PM	Yes, you can get around Blasphemy with silence, but do you want to? Spending the time and effort to counter something like that isn't fun. It has nothing to do with role-playing and it is not a good game-play experience. It's not as if you just have to deal with one broken aspect of the game and can get on with actually playing, Blasphemy is just one example, there are dozens of spells that are blatently broken and need similar precautions. Mind controls, level drains and abilities drains and there are special abilities unique to some monsters and there are situations like auto-surprise. Spending all my time in the game trying to cover every way the mod writer might auto-kill my character sucks. The obvious solution is for the RPGA to not let retarded crap like that into a game in the first place and the easieast way to do it is to simply ban it until WotC figures out how to write a decent magic system that doesn't have this garbage in it. Well I have to agree that Blasphemy and auto-surprise are bad (auto-surprise should NEVER happen IMO), all those other things you should prepare for and be ready to counter. Level or Ability Drain? Scroll of Restoration. (I don't remember if the potion is open access or not.) Or, if it might result in auto death (as with wizards and greater shadows, get back and let the fighters get their attention). Mind Control? Protection From Evil Scroll or potion. Dispel Magic? Have your most important buffs avaliable at least twice. (prep protection from evil and have a scroll or potion, if possible.) If you aren't ready for these kinds of things, or things like invisiblity or darkness, you might have trouble. (A vampire is bad enough, an invisible one with caster lvls, have fun).
thorinXXX 03-30-07, 03:21 PM	Any spell that requires as much work to keep in check as these spells obviously do, should be placed on the restricted list. Very few spells of this level have such a potential to crate a TPK all by themselves. There are several spells that are less game breaking than this one that have been restricted, so why the hesitation here? The Silence defense has several huge drawbacks. First is that it keeps the party clumped togather in prime AOE formation. Second is that it shuts down friendly spellcasters, bards and marshalls. While there are ways around the second problem, they all require foreknowledge of the attack or precious actions during combat.
Madfox11 03-30-07, 04:38 PM	The hesitation is because (a) it is a core spell (the only core spells baned are because of campaign management issues), (b) integrated quiet deeply into the game system (templates, domains, etc.) and (c) it is only lethal in specific circumstances that require a set-up that would make any encounter incredibly lethal as well. Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
boolean 03-31-07, 05:24 PM	Level or Ability Drain? Scroll of Restoration. (I don't remember if the potion is open access or not.) Or, if it might result in auto death (as with wizards and greater shadows, get back and let the fighters get their attention). In general, restoration cannot be made into a potion. Potions can only contain spells of up to third level, and restoration is a fourth level spell for most classes able to cast it. (There might be a prestige class or something somewhere that gets it as a third.) I have seen potions of restoration available in a module, but that was a specific exception to the standard rule.
GreatSiron 03-31-07, 07:42 PM	I didn't have my PHB on me at the time, and you are right, you have to use scrolls of Restoration. But you should have one, and several potions of lesser restoration, to combat abiltiy drain.
kenobi65 03-31-07, 09:12 PM	I didn't have my PHB on me at the time, and you are right, you have to use scrolls of Restoration. But you should have one, and several potions of lesser restoration, to combat abiltiy drain. Lesser restoration can restore ability damage, but won't help with ability drain: Lesser restoration dispels any magical effects reducing one of the subject’s ability scores or cures 1d4 points of temporary ability damage to one of the subject’s ability scores. It also eliminates any fatigue suffered by the character, and improves an exhausted condition to fatigued. It does not restore permanent ability drain. So, alas, you would need a full Restoration.
GreatSiron 03-31-07, 09:53 PM	Well all the more reason to have a scroll of restoration avaliable, and hopefully someone who can either cast it or UMD it.
thorinXXX 04-01-07, 11:52 AM	The hesitation is because (a) it is a core spell (the only core spells baned are because of campaign management issues), (b) integrated quiet deeply into the game system (templates, domains, etc.) and (c) it is only lethal in specific circumstances that require a set-up that would make any encounter incredibly lethal as well. Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns I undestand the first point completely. The second is more debatable, as there is only one domain and associated template that uses these spells. But, yes, there are a few creatures who also have one of these spells as spell like abilities. The third point is simply not true. How many other spells simply require initiative to incpacitate a large portion of a party with no save?
GreatSiron 04-01-07, 01:10 PM	I How many other spells simply require initiative to incpacitate a large portion of a party with no save? Holy Word :) (You'd be surprised how many neutrals there are out there.)
Madfox11 04-01-07, 02:53 PM	And the whole party must be within 30 ft., preferably without being able to run, and there must be an auto-surprise set-up. Like others have said, if you can cast 4 blasphemies and a greater dispel magic and cover the whole team, there are other things that would kill the better part of the group. Note that the situation that triggered the rant did not result in any deaths...
JamesMaissen 04-01-07, 05:17 PM	While there are plenty of remedies to this specific problem, the attachment to HitDice rather than CR is the real culprit here. It manefests itself in the Holy Word spells but can be seen in nonassociated class level advancements, spell-like abilities in general, as well as most things that are otherwise tied to level for expectations of scope. -James
pneumatik 04-01-07, 05:29 PM	The issue of super-high-caster-level Blasphemies came up in Geoff in years 3-5. The problem isn't just with the spell. Assuming CRs are calculated correctly and no one's playing up too much, no spellcaster should Blasphemy anyone much lower than 4 or 5 levels below them. It's very unlikely that it's the whole table. The issue is with the half-fiend template. Blasphemy showed up in Geoff around year 3 because the triad introduced giants with the half-fiend template. A fire giant with the half-fiend template, for example, is CR 13 but uses Blasphemy at its HD, which is level 15. One half-fiendish fire giant is a reasonable challenge for an APL 10 table (or, at the Geoff battle interactive, it's a little weak). A table of two level 8 and four level 9 characters is APL 10. When the half-fiend fire giant uses blasphemy on the party, the entire table is paralyzed and helpless for 1d10 minutes. That's a TPK that can be very difficult to avoid and is completely legal. I'm sure there are some other monsters that have even more HD for the CR that would be even more brutal.
Lupo 04-01-07, 05:37 PM	While there are plenty of remedies to this specific problem, the attachment to HitDice rather than CR is the real culprit here. It manefests itself in the Holy Word spells but can be seen in nonassociated class level advancements, spell-like abilities in general, as well as most things that are otherwise tied to level for expectations of scope. -James but that is a more general fault in the current D&D rules set. look at turning abilities . . . undead or even worse, elementals and plant . . . . instead of the turning being linked to the challenge rating it is linked to the HD. trying to turn anything after APL 8 is usually a wasted action, unless for turning fine tuned radiant servants of mighty cheese :( ciao martin m. ps: and no other uses for elemental turnings apart from three for the earth domain is another open field for "useful" new feats, instead of second, third or fourth incarnation of basically the same feat in a new splat book :(
JamesMaissen 04-01-07, 08:04 PM	but that is a more general fault in the current D&D rules set. That's exactly my point. That's where things break and they do so more than just with the Holy Word spells. -James
Madfox11 04-02-07, 04:24 AM	look at turning abilities . . . undead or even worse, elementals and plant . . . . instead of the turning being linked to the challenge rating it is linked to the HD. The problem with turning has little to do with HD to CR ratio. The problem with undead turning is that it tends to be an all or nothing thing. The author cannot assume there is going to be a cleric available for turning, but at the same time he should assume there is going to a specialist or else run the risk of an undead encounter that is over as soon as it is the clerics turn. There are many ways within the rules to generate turn resistance, and it is that fact that is working against the average turner - the addition of two feats adds +8 turn resistance and unhallow and a couple of other spells make turning even less of an option. In my home campaign I know there is going to be a cleric, and how good he is, so I can add a couple of encounters with two or three shadows just to make the cleric feel useful. In LG if there is no cleric those few shadows are incredible dangerous even at APL 10 and even when you expact them (as one player learned in the homecampaign who gambled on his high touch AC to trigger the shadow encounter willingly before the cleric was nearby and he ended up as a shadow after the first round).
Rerednaw 04-02-07, 11:22 AM	On the main LG list, someone mentioned that Theo Judd, BK triad made a ruling at aggiecon that effectively kicked up the level of blasphemy by several levels... 1. treating the str penalty as damage, instead of a penalty... 2. level 15 chars being paralyzed by a L18 blasphemy. That's a very strange reading of "up to level -5". ...The problem here though isn't the spell. It is how the spell was interpreted plus (from one possibly biased opinion, we don't have all the facts) possibly ignoring the rules for encounter suprise and inflicting autosurprise when it might have actually been a "straight initiative" type situation (eg, the monsters plane shift or teleport in. That was their surprise round. To do anything but arrive, they must win initiative too. If they teleported they might also be trapped in an anticipate teleport effect. If plane shifting in from etherial, see invis might have revealed them well beforehand....) I agree with that. I think more issues occur when using the half-fiend template (also mentioned). It's possible to run into entities that can cast it at 13th+ level at APL8. Athach, CR11 (CL14th) with half-fiend template or the well-known Hezrou CR 11 blasphemy 3x/day at CL13. These aren't even the worst ones in the MM, not to mention MM2+ and that's without any CL-pumping tricks. On the other hand, that is likely to be the lone boss fight. Unless other factors are not being considered into the EL (surprise, terrain, other advantages) you shouldn't run into this that much. Now at higher APLs, I do not really have an answer. The only thing I can come up with off of the top of my head that would mitigate the effects would be pre-planning (divinations and contingencies). Don't have a contingency or silence handy? [del]Worst case, I'll drop a thunderstone and deliberately fail the save to take deafening penalties for an hour.[del] Oops, being deaf doesn't work against Blasphemy or Dictum. I have not run into this situation myself. If I noticed a pattern I would appeal the TPK or PC death that resulted. If that pattern continues, I'd drop regionals/interactives and stick to playing CORs.
Jesse Heinig 04-02-07, 12:28 PM	Presumably one could write an encounter that adds or subtracts a certain amount of undead depending on whether there's a cleric at the table. The problem with turning has little to do with HD to CR ratio. The problem with undead turning is that it tends to be an all or nothing thing. The author cannot assume there is going to be a cleric available for turning, but at the same time he should assume there is going to a specialist or else run the risk of an undead encounter that is over as soon as it is the clerics turn. There are many ways within the rules to generate turn resistance, and it is that fact that is working against the average turner - the addition of two feats adds +8 turn resistance and unhallow and a couple of other spells make turning even less of an option. In my home campaign I know there is going to be a cleric, and how good he is, so I can add a couple of encounters with two or three shadows just to make the cleric feel useful. In LG if there is no cleric those few shadows are incredible dangerous even at APL 10 and even when you expact them (as one player learned in the homecampaign who gambled on his high touch AC to trigger the shadow encounter willingly before the cleric was nearby and he ended up as a shadow after the first round).
smerwin29 04-02-07, 12:35 PM	Presumably one could write an encounter that adds or subtracts a certain amount of undead depending on whether there's a cleric at the table. You are just asking for trouble in so many ways by doing that. First of all, you are now creating not just different encounters for each APL in the adventure, but you are creating different encounters within an APL depending on table composition. And the question begin: what if the table has a character with cleric levels, but is not a full cleric? Then players begin expecting writers to put in similar stipulations for other situations. If there is not a power attacking melee fighter in the party, add or subtract a certain number of creatures with high DR. Writers just need to be aware of certain issues, like the blasphemy problem with half-fiendish creatures. If you use that template and it would result in auto-deaths, clarify that the creature will not use it. Shawn
Jesse Heinig 04-02-07, 12:42 PM	It's not hard to say "If anyone at the table has APL-2 clerical levels, throw in an extra six (whatever undead of type already listed for the encounter)". Some writers already do take this sort of thing into account, in dealing with whether the party has the Track feat, the issue of alternative ways around traps, etc. It's not really a big deal. I think from the original poster's complaint the problem is that it's alleged that triads are using creatures with autokill powers specifically because they can get the autokill and they know it. You are just asking for trouble in so many ways by doing that. First of all, you are now creating not just different encounters for each APL in the adventure, but you are creating different encounters within an APL depending on table composition. And the question begin: what if the table has a character with cleric levels, but is not a full cleric? Then players begin expecting writers to put in similar stipulations for other situations. If there is not a power attacking melee fighter in the party, add or subtract a certain number of creatures with high DR. Writers just need to be aware of certain issues, like the blasphemy problem with half-fiendish creatures. If you use that template and it would result in auto-deaths, clarify that the creature will not use it. Shawn
Reylance 04-02-07, 01:09 PM	I don't think silence protects you from a blasphemy spell. From the SRD: "Any nonevil creature within the area of a blasphemy spell suffers the following ill effects."
gomeztoo 04-02-07, 01:13 PM	I don't get it: why add undead? If I play a cleric, and I blast through an undead encounter... WHY is that bad? Shouldn't I be good at that if I specialize in it? If you don't want the encounter to be insta-over when a cleric shows up, you can add other creatures. Or a rebuking cleric. Personally, I don't mind if one of the encounters is over when the cleric gets to do his thing. Occasionally, you just have to allow that to happen.
Reylance 04-02-07, 01:15 PM	I would support the banning of Blasphemy and related spells. Save=no spells with no to hit roll needed are very dangerous, and Blasphemy et al. are among the few area of effect ones, and very little can protect you from them. I agree that the half-fiend template is the real source of the problem. Blasphemy is a top tier level 7 spell, which scales with caster level, and is dangerous though survivable when you face an opponent with caster level near your level. Blasphemy can break the CR system, and triads and the Circle should not allow encounters that mathematically fit but are far more powerful than they should be.
GreatSiron 04-02-07, 01:34 PM	I don't think silence protects you from a blasphemy spell. From the SRD: "Any nonevil creature within the area of a blasphemy spell suffers the following ill effects." Yeah, but Silence stops them from casting it in the first place.
solbergb 04-02-07, 01:56 PM	I don't think silence protects you from a blasphemy spell. From the SRD: "Any nonevil creature within the area of a blasphemy spell suffers the following ill effects." It does. It's a sonic effect. All sonic effects are stopped by silence, per the Silence spell description. Deafness however, does not protect you from blasphemy.
Jesse Heinig 04-02-07, 02:15 PM	I don't mind either, just like if you have a rogue who can take 10 or take 20 and deal with the traps for the module's APL, he should be able to. Some people just get that stuck in their craw, though, and feel like they *have* to have a way to force the players into a bad spot regardless of their capabilities (e.g. Turns of the Spiral, so if they wanna do that . . . I don't get it: why add undead? If I play a cleric, and I blast through an undead encounter... WHY is that bad? Shouldn't I be good at that if I specialize in it? If you don't want the encounter to be insta-over when a cleric shows up, you can add other creatures. Or a rebuking cleric. Personally, I don't mind if one of the encounters is over when the cleric gets to do his thing. Occasionally, you just have to allow that to happen.
Madfox11 04-02-07, 02:35 PM	I don't get it: why add undead? If I play a cleric, and I blast through an undead encounter... WHY is that bad? Shouldn't I be good at that if I specialize in it? If you don't want the encounter to be insta-over when a cleric shows up, you can add other creatures. Or a rebuking cleric. Personally, I don't mind if one of the encounters is over when the cleric gets to do his thing. Occasionally, you just have to allow that to happen. You might be surprised how many complaints you get over such an anti-climax, especially if it is the end fight. People don't like feeling useless, and while the occasional usefull turn is great in making the turning cleric feeling useful, it is also a sure way for any other character from feeling useless. All or nothing effects simply have this effect. It is one of the reasons why R&D came up with the encounter traps in the first place.
Mommy was an Orc 04-02-07, 03:36 PM	You might be surprised how many complaints you get over such an anti-climax, especially if it is the end fight. People don't like feeling useless, and while the occasional usefull turn is great in making the turning cleric feeling useful, it is also a sure way for any other character from feeling useless. All or nothing effects simply have this effect. It is one of the reasons why R&D came up with the encounter traps in the first place. But there should be a relatively easy to way to solve that - you make a 2nd(weaker) encounter that only shows up if the Cleric blows the thing apart. Half-Fiend Advanced Dire Beetles trapped in undead bone cages inside the Mummy Lord's stomach. :) That way, the cleric feels useful, his actions are net beneficial, yet at the same time, he doesn't end the mod. I think the issue with Blasphemy is that the author really doesn't know what kind of party is going to play the mod. Have the wrong party(6 person table with a couple of people playing up 2), and you suddenly have a weak 4 player table for the rest of the encounter...
Rerednaw 04-02-07, 04:03 PM	I don't think silence protects you from a blasphemy spell. From the SRD: "Any nonevil creature within the area of a blasphemy spell suffers the following ill effects." Nope unfortunately that defense only works against Holy Word or Word of Chaos. Blasphemy and Dictum do not have the same counter. Barring an errata or FAQ that I may have missed...
taylorj 04-02-07, 04:17 PM	[/SIZE] Nope unfortunately that defense only works against Holy Word or Word of Chaos. Blasphemy and Dictum do not have the same counter. Barring an errata or FAQ that I may have missed... That seems wrong. The language in those spells is exactly the same. Either they would all be blocked, or none of them would be.
solbergb 04-02-07, 04:29 PM	[/SIZE] Nope unfortunately that defense only works against Holy Word or Word of Chaos. Blasphemy and Dictum do not have the same counter. Barring an errata or FAQ that I may have missed... Try the "Silence" spell description, final line. "This spell provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks." All of those spells are "sonic" descriptor spells. Therefore, Silence is sovereign against them. It doesn't matter the exact wording of the individual spells. Deafness (the condition) by contrast doesn't give automatic defense against sonic spells. It only helps if the sonic spell description says it helps. "Deafened: A deafened character cannot hear. She takes a -4 penalty on initiative checks, automatically fails Listen checks, and has a 20% chance of spell failure when casting spells with verbal components. Characters who remain deafened for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."
Sieylianna 04-02-07, 04:52 PM	It's not hard to say "If anyone at the table has APL-2 clerical levels, throw in an extra six (whatever undead of type already listed for the encounter)". Except the fact that just because you have cleric levels, doesn't mean that you can turn undead. Witness the module which I played with the dwarf cleric with a charisma of six. Ed
Rerednaw 04-02-07, 05:16 PM	That seems wrong. The language in those spells is exactly the same. Either they would all be blocked, or none of them would be. I'm glad that silence as written blocks all spells with the sound descriptor. I wasn't sure off the top of my head. On the other point though: As written the Holy Word, Blasphemy, etc. spells are not the same. Holy Word Evocation [Good, Sonic] Level: Clr 7, Good 7 Components: V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 40 ft. Area: Nongood creatures in a 40-ft.-radius spread centered on you Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None or Will negates; see text Spell Resistance: Yes Any nongood creature within the area that hears the holy word suffers the following ill effects. ... Blasphemy Evocation [Evil, Sonic] Level: Clr 7, Evil 7 Components: V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 40 ft. Area: Nonevil creatures in a 40-ft.-radius spread centered on you Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None or Will negates; see text Spell Resistance: Yes Any nonevil creature within the area of a blasphemy spell suffers the following ill effects. ... Two of the spells include the phrase "that hears", the other two do not. You will get table variation on this. If the target does not hear the word, whether it is because it is via Silence or because they cannot hear then by the RAW they aren't affected. Unless there was a FAQ or errata on this, as far as I know the spells have not changed. Unless you are going to argue that a deafened target can hear only with respect to Holy Word type spells? Hmmm I think I'll post this in Infinite Monkeys...
copper_wyrmling 04-02-07, 05:37 PM	You might be surprised how many complaints you get over such an anti-climax, especially if it is the end fight. People don't like feeling useless, and while the occasional usefull turn is great in making the turning cleric feeling useful, it is also a sure way for any other character from feeling useless. All or nothing effects simply have this effect. It is one of the reasons why R&D came up with the encounter traps in the first place. It's not just all-or-nothing effects that achieve that, though... some PCs will just be better suited for some encounters than others. It's presumably okay for my characters to feel "useless" because the low-AC monster won initiative and charged the raging power-attacking party barbarian, and by the time their action came around he'd eviscerated it with his full attack. If we're fighting a bunch of Medium or smaller opponents (especially casters / archers / rogues) then my sorcerer will usually drop a Sculpted Evard's Black Tentacles, and make no apology for single-handedly neutralizing most of the bad guys. Same if we're fighting a bunch of undead and I'm playing my cleric... she turns at L18, or effectively 4 levels higher if someone in the party can activate her lyre of the restful soul. Maybe it's too entrenched to get rid of, but it seems a bit strange to me to feel "useless" because your party members were so effective at neutralizing a threat that you didn't need to do anything. "Useless" is really only an appropriate description where your party needed you to deal with a particular problem or threat and you couldn't provide what was needed... I'm not denying that people do get upset when they feel that their PCs aren't getting a chance to display their abilities. There was a situation that seemed strange to me in the game I played yesterday (perhaps I misunderstood the situation, though): there were three fighters in the party, and two NPC bad guys; one of the PC fighters was standing next to one of the NPCs, while the second PC fighter had a charge line on the second NPC. I was playing the third fighter, who had been checking a different room: he moved in and went to attack the second NPC (being careful not to block his buddy's charge line), since the first NPC was too far away. I was accused by the player of the second PC fighter of "nerfing his character" and "making him look useless". I'm still not sure why... would it have been better for my fighter to move in and not take his standard action, just so the other guy could feel that he'd killed that NPC all on his own? :confused: Honestly, at higher levels I find it to be the norm rather than the exception that only 1-2 PCs get to really shine in each encounter - PCs are more specialized, and encounters tend to be over very quickly. Whether that's the Int-30 grey elf fatespinner sticking a Flesh to Stone on the BBEG, the party BDF getting shuttled into full-attack range and then unloading several hundred points of melee damage, or the cleric dusting all the undead in one action, doesn't seem to make much difference. It's just a good argument for varying the encounters and monster types within each scenario, so the different encounters allow different PC types a chance to show off. (Hmmm... wow... this is quite a tangent from the original topic of the thread ;) Re Blasphemy, I don't mind the spell so long as editors and authors realize how unfair Blasphemy is when the caster level is APL+5 or higher - something that auto-paralyzes everyone who's not playing down is not a challenge, it's the equivalent of "rocks fall, you die".)
Hariman 04-02-07, 06:17 PM	But there should be a relatively easy to way to solve that - you make a 2nd(weaker) encounter that only shows up if the Cleric blows the thing apart. Half-Fiend Advanced Dire Beetles trapped in undead bone cages inside the Mummy Lord's stomach. :) That way, the cleric feels useful, his actions are net beneficial, yet at the same time, he doesn't end the mod. I think the issue with Blasphemy is that the author really doesn't know what kind of party is going to play the mod. Have the wrong party(6 person table with a couple of people playing up 2), and you suddenly have a weak 4 player table for the rest of the encounter... That's just WRONG. That makes it seem like you are PUNISHING the cleric for turning the undead. I'd rather see mook fights with turnable undead (Or a rebuking cleric who can make them cower, bypassing Turn Resistance.) and BBEG undead fights with boosted turn resistance. As for Blasphemy/Holy Word, I haven't seen it yet. My characters are too low level right now. But mods should include language that prevents the auto paralysis of below APL characters and entire parties. It seems like this thread should be entitled "Stop Writer/Judge abuse of overpowered strategies/templates/spells and surprise rounds." High Strength Spiked Chainers, Fiendish and Half fiend, Blasphemy, and Auto Surprise, I'm looking at you.
solbergb 04-02-07, 06:48 PM	The typical undead encounter I've seen lately has an unturnabble guy with turnable minions. That to me is best of both worlds. Turning is useful so you benefit for having a cleric, but you still have to deal with their enraged boss. (who just did an APL14 adventure that went something like this: 1. turning cleric + sorc with lyre of restfull soul dust the encounter. Fighter gets one AOO 1a. party fighters are deemed capable of killing minor undead nuisances without burning further resources (ie, undead too low level to give us xp, hit us only on 20, we kill in one swat and get many swats, etc) 2. turning cleric + sorc with lyre of restfull soul dust the encounter. Prismatic spray injures one party member, stones another 3. monk dim doors two fighters to bad guy and between them they tear its guts out. Cleric sticks a diefic vengeance to remove the last 9 hp. My wife's character, who rolled low init all 3 times didn't have to do anything. But she was a big participant in the noncombat stuff and COULD have done big bad mojo had we failed to get the job done earlier. the results of this was 4. bad guy NPC's try to escape and it's ruled we have vast overkill in resources to pursue them (all three spellcasters had hardly touched offensive spells, including battlefield control, two of three melee types were much faster than bad guys) I tend not to be too picky about how encounters are ended. I know that sooner or later my character's number will come up, where he can strut his stuff.) The thing is, in the described adventure above, there was a chance of failure with each "end encounter suddenly" approach taken, so even though one combo did dominate the table (lyre+cleric) due to all the undead encounters, the rest of us had to have a plan in place in case those actions were just wasted. (and we had full confidence that we would have been ok) The spun-up holy word combats...not so much. Although the one time my wife actually used the tactic it was to try to dismiss enough of an EL+6 encounter that we could reasonably flee,
AnexCDC 04-02-07, 11:13 PM	On a side note, something that I noticed while reading the materials this thread is based upon. Blasphemy's Weakened affect is not damage nor is it drain; it is an on going magical affect (lasting 2d4 rounds). Thus a Restoration, lesser would completely remove the affect, and the affect of any other blasphemy's on the targets str. It still takes three rounds to cast, unless you have a potion, but then it has to be a potion of Restoration, lesser (str).
mindreavertp 04-03-07, 07:37 AM	It seems these spells don't use the mechanic used by most of the other spells in the PHB. Most spells either require a 'to hit' or a saving throw. (a few require both) These spells just use a blanket level difference between the caster and those hit by the spell. That is a problem and needs to be addressed. Often due to ATL, items (beads of karma anyone?) and just CR differences the bad guys end up being way more than +5 levels above the players. It works both ways I've seen players using beads of karma and divine spell power (in the past) to bump their level to ridiculous levels and blast the bad guys. Either ban these spells completely, or add saving throws to them. Simple. (on a side note) I recently judged a (core) mod that puts a balor (or pit fiend, judges choice) against a party. The balor (as I realized after already choosing) gets Blasphemy at Caster level 20. The mod was being played at APL 12 with one person at the table being 10th level. Frankly as a judge, I dont care what tactics you write as an author, I will NOT have the bad guy cast Blasphemy in this situation. So I changed the tactics. Sue me...revoke my judging rights, I dont care. My point being...yes, these need re-evaluated as there are judges out there that will run things 'by the letter' of how it is written no matter how ridiculous the situation or outcome. (and sometimes mods do get approved and barely looked at)
Haro 04-03-07, 08:02 AM	(on a side note) I recently judged a (core) mod that puts a balor (or pit fiend, judges choice) against a party. The balor (as I realized after already choosing) gets Blasphemy at Caster level 20. The mod was being played at APL 12 with one person at the table being 10th level. Frankly as a judge, I dont care what tactics you write as an author, I will NOT have the bad guy cast Blasphemy in this situation. So I changed the tactics. Sue me...revoke my judging rights, I dont care. My point being...yes, these need re-evaluated as there are judges out there that will run things 'by the letter' of how it is written no matter how ridiculous the situation or outcome. I know this was a side note to your reply but I have a bit of an issue with the above. I don't remember any cores that featured this in it and I've judged almost every one that is currently available. Since Balors and Pit Fiends are CR 20 creatures, are you saying the writer put an APL +8 encounter in the scenario and not one member of these boards is screaming blue murder about it? Is there a chance you may have misread any part that led you to this situation? (and sometimes mods do get approved and barely looked at) Care to enlighten us as to how you know that, or are you making this assertion of fact when it is merely your opinion? :) Joe
Zodar6 04-03-07, 08:16 AM	(on a side note) I recently judged a (core) mod that puts a balor (or pit fiend, judges choice) against a party. The balor (as I realized after already choosing) gets Blasphemy at Caster level 20. The mod was being played at APL 12 with one person at the table being 10th level. Frankly as a judge, I dont care what tactics you write as an author, I will NOT have the bad guy cast Blasphemy in this situation. So I changed the tactics. Sue me...revoke my judging rights, I dont care. My point being...yes, these need re-evaluated as there are judges out there that will run things 'by the letter' of how it is written no matter how ridiculous the situation or outcome. (and sometimes mods do get approved and barely looked at) Me thinks I recently played this one. The Balor (in our case) was gated in and the module gave you more than enough time to run away (the fiend would not give chase). You could then return later with reinforcements (the balor was gone - master's choice or module as written - I know not) and really trounce the BBEG.
copper_wyrmling 04-03-07, 11:40 AM	Me thinks I recently played this one. The Balor (in our case) was gated in and the module gave you more than enough time to run away (the fiend would not give chase). You could then return later with reinforcements (the balor was gone - master's choice or module as written - I know not) and really trounce the BBEG. I've played and judged this one. The module explicitly states that the master only summons the fiend to scare the party, and he's not interested in killing them (he wants them to escape and tell others that he's not to be disturbed). The GM is specifically instructed to scare the party, but not use abilities that will kill them unless they seriously threaten the balor (at that point, threatening his master is not really an option). It's an untiered encounter, it doesn't give XP, and the way the scenario's written, that should be fairly obvious. This might be a good example of why it's better to read modules before commenting on them ;)
Rerednaw 04-03-07, 11:49 AM	Me thinks I recently played this one. The Balor (in our case) was gated in and the module gave you more than enough time to run away (the fiend would not give chase). You could then return later with reinforcements (the balor was gone - master's choice or module as written - I know not) and really trounce the BBEG. Off-topic. OMMOOD! (Oh My Monotheistc, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Deity-I said it here first! ) Balor? At APL12? So, a BBEG was 17th level? Or lower level with a scroll? Ick, I think I'll retire my toons at 10th. :p
Timlagor 04-03-07, 11:59 AM	I agree that they should be banned. (I'd also rather like to have DSP back but that's not related) I don't think having them in the PHB is enough of a reason to keep them. I don't think having them in templates is a reason at all. The fact that Blasphemy features in the template is the cause for endless contortions to remove it from play on the part of writers, reviwers and judges leaving a thoroughly uneven play experience and significant bad feeling. A campaign rule that removed these spells from the game and replaced them with something appropirate in the Templates would be a lot less trouble.
Japangirl 04-03-07, 01:08 PM	I've played and judged this one. The module explicitly states that the master only summons the fiend to scare the party, and he's not interested in killing them (he wants them to escape and tell others that he's not to be disturbed). The GM is specifically instructed to scare the party, but not use abilities that will kill them unless they seriously threaten the balor (at that point, threatening his master is not really an option). It's an untiered encounter, it doesn't give XP, and the way the scenario's written, that should be fairly obvious. This might be a good example of why it's better to read modules before commenting on them ;) I've played this one but neither run nor read it. We, as an APL 12 party, were considering taking on the balor. When a second one came out, we left (hurriedly, I might add). It is very obvious that the party is NOT supposed to fight this encounter, and that the BBEG is soooo far above you that attacking him probably isn't a terribly good idea either. As such, I had no problems with such a blatant display of power; anything subtler and some might have missed the "hint".
Madfox11 04-03-07, 01:39 PM	I agree that they should be banned. (I'd also rather like to have DSP back but that's not related) I don't think having them in the PHB is enough of a reason to keep them. I don't think having them in templates is a reason at all. The fact that Blasphemy features in the template is the cause for endless contortions to remove it from play on the part of writers, reviwers and judges leaving a thoroughly uneven play experience and significant bad feeling. A campaign rule that removed these spells from the game and replaced them with something appropirate in the Templates would be a lot less trouble. I did tell you all about conflicting interests and the balancing act the Circle sometimes is involved in, didn't I? ;) Besides the fact that WotC is a lot more opposed to removing core items because of what we think are balancing issues, adding something different to an existing template AND several Monster Manual monsters is asking for confusion. It is already difficult enough to get the DMs to know all errate and the FAQ. LG type of errata is even more difficult to implement. That is the reason why I said that removing something integrated in the game is difficult, not because it is necessarily as complicated as changing AC into DR (which impacts a lot more things than just armor and a couple of AC boosting spells). Yes, I personally dislike the spell. Does the Circle as a whole dislike it enough to deal with all the problems of removing the spell: not really (and neither do I btw). We have looked at it several times, and if somebody can offer us a great core alternative and a quick and easy method to implement it, I am sure that will be a great help. It will definitely be much more appreciated than rants ;) Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
MichaelAhlf 04-03-07, 02:33 PM	Yes, I personally dislike the spell. Does the Circle as a whole dislike it enough to deal with all the problems of removing the spell: not really (and neither do I btw). We have looked at it several times, and if somebody can offer us a great core alternative and a quick and easy method to implement it, I am sure that will be a great help. It will definitely be much more appreciated than rants ;) Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns Pieter, hey! Level 7 spells are considerably painful, but I can think of a couple options. I'll pull them from the SRD, so we are just replacing one spell with another. Symbol of Stunning might work, as it has a Fortitude save to negate versus the Stunning effect. Symbol of Weakness is another possibility, again it gives a Fortitude save or 3d6 strength damage. This might also be a problem, this is definitively "damage", and creatures with 3/day attacks could easily guarantee that more than half a party went comatose by doing it twice in a row. With these two, saving throws based on hit dice are still a problem. Repulsion could be an interesting choice. There are also the slightly lower-level alignment spells Chaos Hammer, Order's Wrath, Holy Smite, and Unholy Blight to consider as options.
Timlagor 04-03-07, 03:14 PM	Many judges already don't know the rules -you must surely be aware of the gross misruling of Blasphemy by a triad member recently and I'd be astonished if you didn't know of dozens of other even more basic bad rulings. Judges do not need to know the details of any substitution for Blasphemy since it will already be written into the modules (in the short term ..most of us don't use it anyway even if it isn't already crossed out) If WotC are being a pain about it.. well there's not much to be done about that. ..actually I don't think I've come across Blasphemy yet :)
Jay_Ibero_911 04-03-07, 03:16 PM	Pieter, hey! Level 7 spells are considerably painful, but I can think of a couple options. I'll pull them from the SRD, so we are just replacing one spell with another. Symbol of Stunning might work, as it has a Fortitude save to negate versus the Stunning effect. Symbol of Weakness is another possibility, again it gives a Fortitude save or 3d6 strength damage. This might also be a problem, this is definitively "damage", and creatures with 3/day attacks could easily guarantee that more than half a party went comatose by doing it twice in a row. With these two, saving throws based on hit dice are still a problem. Repulsion could be an interesting choice. There are also the slightly lower-level alignment spells Chaos Hammer, Order's Wrath, Holy Smite, and Unholy Blight to consider as options. Waves of Exhaustion might be a good potential substitute. Potentially exhausting the entire party with no save is certainly debilitating, but without the potential of being an auto-TPK. Half movement and -6 to str and dex hurts. On the other hand, a cleric or druid with 10 ranks in heal and healing lorecall up can eliminate the exhaustion on the whole party with just a mass lesser vigor. Of course that still eats up 2 spell slots and 2 standard actions...
MichaelAhlf 04-03-07, 04:28 PM	Waves of Exhaustion might be a good potential substitute. Potentially exhausting the entire party with no save is certainly debilitating, but without the potential of being an auto-TPK. Half movement and -6 to str and dex hurts. On the other hand, a cleric or druid with 10 ranks in heal and healing lorecall up can eliminate the exhaustion on the whole party with just a mass lesser vigor. Of course that still eats up 2 spell slots and 2 standard actions... Yes, another good suggestion. It's a Sorceror/Wizard instead of Cleric spell, but definitely a similar effect without being broken.
AnexCDC 04-03-07, 05:17 PM	The problem with these spells is not the spells in and of themselves, but writers tweaking situations to make ugly encounters. I personally do not think anything will come of banning these spells since if a writer is going to make these situations they can without the use of the spells. I myself have been in these situations a number of times, and have yet to have Blasphemy be the cause of it. It comes down to this: ban a group of spell that can be abused and then you have to ban just about everything else under the sun, since it can be abused with a creative imagination. This would result in very few options for players and writers alike, and end up creating a dull campaign. Its up to writers to not exploit the options in such ways as to make tpk situations inevitable.
Timlagor 04-03-07, 05:24 PM	The problem with these spells is not the spells in and of themselves, but writers tweaking situations to make ugly encounters. It really is the spells themselves. You don't have to try to abuse Blasphemy: it's impossible to create a high-APL half-fiend without dealing with it.
Dempster 04-03-07, 05:57 PM	Only five in an into mod...thats for children! Come to high folk face "the reaper".
Britt 04-03-07, 05:59 PM	Only five in an into mod...thats for children! Come to high folk face "the reaper". You know, I had to ask him to remove that from the author line on a recent mod :p
Madfox11 04-04-07, 03:45 AM	All those spells would be reasonable good substitutions for the half-fiend template, but not for the various alignment domains since they require spells associated with the alignment they represent. Also note that only with the half-fiend template will it actually be in the adventure. If we use monsters from the basic Monster Manual it will not since we do NOT reprint monsters from the MM. Finally, for the half-fiend to be effective enough to paralyze the whole party it must gain surprise (or high initiative) and be able to get close enough to cover the whole party with the spell (within 40 ft. of all PCs). The few times I actually used the spell or it was used against me (all in cores) the opposition could actually only cover half of the party. For it to be able to do so 4 times in a row the situation becomes even more difficult to engineer. I admit it is surprisingly easy to set this situation up, but it still does require some work on the authors and DMs side.
Jesse Heinig 04-04-07, 03:51 AM	With DMs who rule that you must make a Spot check to notice that the party has packed up and left while you were on guard duty for the last watch, it's not hard to have a module where the monsters surprise you from a range of 10' in every encounter. All those spells would be reasonable good substitutions for the half-fiend template, but not for the various alignment domains since they require spells associated with the alignment they represent. Also note that only with the half-fiend template will it actually be in the adventure. If we use monsters from the basic Monster Manual it will not since we do NOT reprint monsters from the MM. Finally, for the half-fiend to be effective enough to paralyze the whole party it must gain surprise (or high initiative) and be able to get close enough to cover the whole party with the spell (within 40 ft. of all PCs). The few times I actually used the spell or it was used against me (all in cores) the opposition could actually only cover half of the party. For it to be able to do so 4 times in a row the situation becomes even more difficult to engineer. I admit it is surprisingly easy to set this situation up, but it still does require some work on the authors and DMs side.
Haro 04-04-07, 04:12 AM	With DMs who rule that you must make a Spot check to notice that the party has packed up and left while you were on guard duty for the last watch, it's not hard to have a module where the monsters surprise you from a range of 10' in every encounter. Well again, that would be a problem with your DM now wouldn't it?
Madfox11 04-04-07, 04:18 AM	With DMs who rule that you must make a Spot check to notice that the party has packed up and left while you were on guard duty for the last watch, it's not hard to have a module where the monsters surprise you from a range of 10' in every encounter. While I would love to give DMs some training to avoid them doing such silly things, the adventure text itself is just not the place to do so. That would be an insult to all the good DMs out there, and in my experience the vast majority of DMs is good, or is going to be good with some proper experience. Besides word count, it would also require the author to think off all stupid things a DM can do, and just like an author cannot think of everything a player can do, doing the same for DMs is just as impossible.
Jesse Heinig 04-04-07, 06:16 AM	Look, it's not up to the adventure to moderate a DM's calls with respect to elements of play that are generic enough to be handled by the regular rules and everyday common sense - but some DMs seem to lack that common sense. An adventure needs to make sure, though, that it doesn't give the DM any more ammunition for setting up arbitrary kill-boxes that are no fun for anyone at the table. While I would love to give DMs some training to avoid them doing such silly things, the adventure text itself is just not the place to do so. That would be an insult to all the good DMs out there, and in my experience the vast majority of DMs is good, or is going to be good with some proper experience. Besides word count, it would also require the author to think off all stupid things a DM can do, and just like an author cannot think of everything a player can do, doing the same for DMs is just as impossible.
Jesse Heinig 04-04-07, 06:16 AM	That would be the fault of the DM who did it and the writer who didn't use his tools a bit more carefully. Well again, that would be a problem with your DM now wouldn't it?
MichaelAhlf 04-04-07, 10:49 AM	All those spells would be reasonable good substitutions for the half-fiend template, but not for the various alignment domains since they require spells associated with the alignment they represent. Also note that only with the half-fiend template will it actually be in the adventure. If we use monsters from the basic Monster Manual it will not since we do NOT reprint monsters from the MM. Finally, for the half-fiend to be effective enough to paralyze the whole party it must gain surprise (or high initiative) and be able to get close enough to cover the whole party with the spell (within 40 ft. of all PCs). The few times I actually used the spell or it was used against me (all in cores) the opposition could actually only cover half of the party. For it to be able to do so 4 times in a row the situation becomes even more difficult to engineer. I admit it is surprisingly easy to set this situation up, but it still does require some work on the authors and DMs side. In the situation we faced, there were multiple monsters that could Blaspheme. They were inside a building, and we had to open the door because our objective was inside. Yes, they were given a surprise round, but even had they not we could not have killed or disabled more than one, leaving at least two potentially able to move into the middle of the party and Blaspheme in the span of one round. Keeping someone 50 feet from the door simply wasn't an option, and a Blasphemy in enclosed spaces is even nastier. A 40-foot radius is 80 feet across. That's Entangle distance. It's pretty hard to keep a party member that far away; on a lot of battle mats, you're off the edge of the grid. There was nothing engineered or very special about the encounter, though I am seeing word that the decision that it Paralyzed the entire party was out of line. Blasphemy at 18th caster level was just that nasty on its own.
MichaelAhlf 04-04-07, 10:57 AM	All those spells would be reasonable good substitutions for the half-fiend template, but not for the various alignment domains since they require spells associated with the alignment they represent. Why? There are still plenty of spells in those alignments. How about this wording? "In all templates, creature blocks, or domains where Blasphemy, Holy Word, Dictum, or Word of Chaos are listed, replace that spell with [[the spell chosen to replace it]]." There's nothing stating that every spell in a Domain list has to be aligned to that domain. Chaos domain has Shatter, Animate Objects. Law has Calm Emotions, Hold Monster, Good domain has Aid and Blade Barrier. Only Evil domain seems to have entirely Evil descriptor spells, and losing one won't hurt it.
copper_wyrmling 04-04-07, 12:57 PM	Why? There are still plenty of spells in those alignments. How about this wording? "In all templates, creature blocks, or domains where Blasphemy, Holy Word, Dictum, or Word of Chaos are listed, replace that spell with [[the spell chosen to replace it]]." There's nothing stating that every spell in a Domain list has to be aligned to that domain. Chaos domain has Shatter, Animate Objects. Law has Calm Emotions, Hold Monster, Good domain has Aid and Blade Barrier. Only Evil domain seems to have entirely Evil descriptor spells, and losing one won't hurt it. I imagine that part of the problem is that clerics with those domains have +1 caster level on spells with the alignment descriptors: changing one of their domain spells from a spell that they cast at +1 CL to a spell that doesn't have that property is a reduction in the usefulness of the domain ability. Regarding how easy it is to ambush people with high-CL Blasphemy: in the case where I saw it, the party was fleeing the Abyss (after being box-text-captured by demons, tortured for information, and making a deal with one of their demon guards to escape). We came around the last corner to the room with the planar portal (which was about 20ft x 20ft), and there was a hezrou and two babau blocking the passageway, at APL 8. I think the wizard made a decent Knowledge (The Planes) check, but the first things he asked about were DR and energy resistances - we had no idea the hezrou had blasphemy. First round, CL 13 Blasphemy. Second round, repeat. Third round, repeat. The babaus (sneak-attacking demons) were free to act through all this. There's really not much you can do against that, at APL 8 - sure, Silence would've helped, if one of the casters with Silence had happened to beat the hezrou on initiative (something which clerics aren't notoriously good at) and we'd had any idea what we were up against. And as Pieter points out, a casual reading of the adventure wouldn't even have revealed the problem, since the hezrou is a standard MM demon and the adventure just directed you to the MM. I don't think that encounter was malice on the author's part, I think he or she simply put in the CR11 MM demon and didn't check that it was actually an appropriate challenge for an APL 8 party.
Samwise 04-04-07, 01:31 PM	Regarding how easy it is to ambush people with high-CL Blasphemy: in the case where I saw it, the party was fleeing the Abyss (after being box-text-captured by demons, tortured for information, and making a deal with one of their demon guards to escape). We came around the last corner to the room with the planar portal (which was about 20ft x 20ft), and there was a hezrou and two babau blocking the passageway, at APL 8. I think the wizard made a decent Knowledge (The Planes) check, but the first things he asked about were DR and energy resistances - we had no idea the hezrou had blasphemy. First round, CL 13 Blasphemy. Wouldn't this just mean the party escaped? Unless the PCs were evil or Oerth wasn't their home plane, if you were still in the Abyss and got hit with a blasphemy, the encounter is over as you get a free trip home. (And unless someone didn't want to fail their save against the banisment effect for some reason.) Or was there something negating that effect? Otherwise I think the bigger issue was not realizing that and continuing the encounter. And, if they really wanted you as prisoners, makes using blasphemy totally self-defeating.
Zanzibax 04-04-07, 01:55 PM	Wouldn't this just mean the party escaped? Unless the PCs were evil or Oerth wasn't their home plane, if you were still in the Abyss and got hit with a blasphemy, the encounter is over as you get a free trip home. (And unless someone didn't want to fail their save against the banisment effect for some reason.) Or was there something negating that effect? Otherwise I think the bigger issue was not realizing that and continuing the encounter. And, if they really wanted you as prisoners, makes using blasphemy totally self-defeating. It seems someone forgot about that effect. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blasphemy.htm Furthermore, if you are on your home plane when you cast this spell, nonevil extraplanar creatures within the area are instantly banished back to their home planes. Creatures so banished cannot return for at least 24 hours. This effect takes place regardless of whether the creatures hear the blasphemy. Also more clearly, you must be able to hear it, so deafened critters are not affect by anything except the banishment effect.
MichaelAhlf 04-04-07, 02:16 PM	I imagine that part of the problem is that clerics with those domains have +1 caster level on spells with the alignment descriptors: changing one of their domain spells from a spell that they cast at +1 CL to a spell that doesn't have that property is a reduction in the usefulness of the domain ability. I seem to remember that being one of the components of CL 20+ holy words involving ioun stones, karma beads, DSP, good domain? I don't have issue with it. We're talking about a spell that's nasty enough to want removal, and it's already a 7th level spell so it requires a 13th level caster. I don't see why switching to a spell that has no change in effect related to caster level is nerfing the domain ability, they still have all the others, as well as all the other non-domain spells with alignment descriptor.
mindreavertp 04-04-07, 02:52 PM	I know this was a side note to your reply but I have a bit of an issue with the above. I don't remember any cores that featured this in it and I've judged almost every one that is currently available. Since Balors and Pit Fiends are CR 20 creatures, are you saying the writer put an APL +8 encounter in the scenario and not one member of these boards is screaming blue murder about it? Is there a chance you may have misread any part that led you to this situation? Care to enlighten us as to how you know that, or are you making this assertion of fact when it is merely your opinion? :) Joe As for the 1st part, yes....the module instructed a CR 20 creature to be gated in. It states that the BBEG wants the PC's to leave and mostly will use the CR 20 to scare them into leaving. (it wasnt necessarily intended to be lethal, but it did say if they stayed....it would become increasingly clear the 'right' choice would be to leave) However my point was and still is, there are DM's and judges out there that would have the guy cast Blasphemy at caster level 20. When I judged this, I did have the Balor use several of his other abilities to encourage them to leave. They eventually did leave and the module proceeded as written. As for the 2nd part, I'm dropping it. My assertion isnt based on assumption, but most definitely on fact. (It happened awhile ago, but it does happen.)
copper_wyrmling 04-04-07, 05:13 PM	Wouldn't this just mean the party escaped? Unless the PCs were evil or Oerth wasn't their home plane, if you were still in the Abyss and got hit with a blasphemy, the encounter is over as you get a free trip home. (And unless someone didn't want to fail their save against the banisment effect for some reason.) Or was there something negating that effect? Otherwise I think the bigger issue was not realizing that and continuing the encounter. And, if they really wanted you as prisoners, makes using blasphemy totally self-defeating. I queried that afterwards (once I'd looked up the spell: I wasn't familiar with it before that encounter), and was told the complex was under a dimensional lock (which was why a ninth-level cleric couldn't just planeshift out). It seems like a reasonable precaution when a lot of the creatures you're trying to hold prisoner are fiends with greater teleport as a spell-like ability. I don't have the module any more, so can't actually confirm that. My point was more that Blasphemy has a large enough area that in most indoor / dungeon-crawl adventures, the party will be sufficiently bunched up that the spell can catch most or all of them, and once several of the PCs have been paralyzed, it's hard for the other PCs to decide to retreat and abandon their friends to death or permadeath. Also, Blasphemy encounters are much worse when the Blasphemy-caster has minions, and especially if Blasphemy can be used many times / day (since the caster can keep the party on daze-lock while the minions slaughter them). I'm just musing over factors that mitigate it and factors that make it worse - being in a large open space is definitely a mitigating factor, but that hasn't been the case in most of the (thankfully rare) Blasphemy encounters I've seen in scenarios. Hmmm... I think I've seen bad guys with Blasphemy in only five scenarios, plus one where the ability was available and crossed off: (1) APL 16 fight with a L16 Iuzian cleric and L16 Iuzian wizard, the cleric could cast Blasphemy at CL21 thanks to her bead of karma and the Evil domain, in an underground cavern small enough for her to cover with Blasphemy, (2) APL 14 fight with a L16 Iuzian cleric plus minions, the cleric cast Blasphemy at CL17 due to the Evil domain, in an underground cavern small enough for the cleric to cover with Blasphemy, (3) the aforementioned APL 8 hezrou fight, (4) APL 12+ fight with multiple hezrous (at lower APLs the hezrous are there but don't use Blasphemy, even at higher APLs their tactics say they only use it to clear the battlefield if the PCs are bringing in lots of low-HD summoned allies) in a reasonably large room, but smaller than the area of Blasphemy, (5) APL 16 fight with ghost cleric using Divine Spell Power - can't remember the CL he got, but it was high enough to Str-reduce but not paralyze the L15 PCs - in open terrain, (6) Half-fiend advanced 29HD remorhaz in open terrain, Blasphemy ability was crossed off. The scary ones were (1) and (3), whereas (2) and (5) were only annoying and Blasphemy never actually came into play in (4) and (6). (6) would obviously have been horrific if the author / editor hadn't been nice enough to remove the ability. Just my experience...
Madfox11 04-05-07, 04:27 AM	. A 40-foot radius is 80 feet across. That's Entangle distance. It's pretty hard to keep a party member that far away; on a lot of battle mats, you're off the edge of the grid. Yes, but it is centered on the caster (no choice), so you need to be more than 8 squares away from the big bad demon and that is actually something at least part of the group would be doing anyway. And as Pieter points out, a casual reading of the adventure wouldn't even have revealed the problem, since the hezrou is a standard MM demon and the adventure just directed you to the MM. I don't think that encounter was malice on the author's part, I think he or she simply put in the CR11 MM demon and didn't check that it was actually an appropriate challenge for an APL 8 party. Exactly.
JamesMaissen 04-05-07, 12:28 PM	Yes, but it is centered on the caster (no choice), so you need to be more than 8 squares away from the big bad demon and that is actually something at least part of the group would be doing anyway. In open terrain where the encounter starts at distance perhaps. But inside, in dungeons, or even outdoors where the enemy is able to engage up close then 40feet from the bad guy is a very big distance. The distance where the encounter starts, and blockages to line of sight past certain distances would make that distance noncontributing to achieve. -James