Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Stormwalkr 05-06-05, 03:37 PM	Just a question, the spell discription is cut off a little. Does it allow a save or SR check?
Zeth Starshifter 05-06-05, 03:57 PM	If I recall correctly, it augments the caster's caster level checks against SR; it doesn't "target" an opponent directly, so there wouldn't be a saving throw.
Derren S. 05-06-05, 04:02 PM	Yep, Nothing the enemy can do against it. Have I mentioned that this spell is overpowered?
Zeth Starshifter 05-06-05, 04:08 PM	Not really overpowered; you get the bonus only against one creature per casting..
stamhaven 05-06-05, 04:24 PM	Yep, it's a personal divination so they weren't truncated, they just don't exist for personal spells (in general). Below 10th level you don't have enough 4th level slots in general to make this too unbalancing, but after that it's a no brainer to toss in at the begining of any fight with with SR due to the swift action casting time and decent duration (compared to true strike for example). As is it is like 3.0 haste at high levels in it's usefulnesss (where SR is much more of a common barrier to overcome in fights). I find using metamagic as a guide for judging balance useful here with quicken built in. If a cantrip could plausibly do the same thing with a standard action casting time then I'd consider it balance but I don't think +10 spell penetration for 1 round per level sounds like a fair 0 level spell.
Derren S. 05-06-05, 05:20 PM	Not really overpowered; you get the bonus only against one creature per casting.. So removing SR (and with it a prime defense against magic) of one creature with a nearly uncounterable swift action is ok?
WunderGoat 05-06-05, 05:41 PM	Its a way powerful spell. Way too powerful for a resonable campaign. Spells are balaced along the idea that there are counters to them. some offer saving throws, others require touch attacks, and nearly all are subject to SR. This spell gets around this basic balancing principle by effectivly allowing all your spells to get around SR for free (time wise at first, then time and slot wise low-mindrange spells are effectivly free). If I were to allow it, I would tweak it so that it was a one shot thing (i.e. your next spell gets the bonus against one guy) and even then its abusable. IMO most of these SR reducers and penetrators start to unbalance the classes. Non-caster classes used to be the way to kill magic-resistant things, but as more of these 'armor-piercing' spells come out, the more non-casters lag behind. *edit* That's not to say that all armor piercing spells are bad. The orbs are an example or an acceptable spell. It loses splash and requires a touch attack to hit, but it does good damage, has saves vs decent secondary effects, and penetrates SR. I think they are borderline 4th-5th level spells and am inclined to move them up, but that is only due to the secondary effects. IMO 'armor-piercing' spells should be significantly worse than similar level spells that allow saves adn don't go though SR.
Bopple 05-06-05, 07:02 PM	One of the most overpowered canon spells out there. Effective against only 1. But that's nothing. We don't face multiple high SR enemies. Mostly, only one of them - BBEG - has high SR.
smrtgmp 05-06-05, 07:05 PM	One of the most overpowered canon spells out there. Effective against only 1. But that's nothing. We don't face multiple high SR enemies. Mostly, only one of them - BBEG - has high SR.I'd say thats rather campaign specific. I played in a game where we battled countless outsiders, and assay resistance wasnt that great when you're facing a hoard of demons.
gamerdork 05-06-05, 10:03 PM	If you as a DM think it's overpowered, make it a +1 to SR checks per TWO levels, maximum of +10. As a player I 've used it twice. The first time, it helped me kill a dragon (adult-ish) in one shot with the poison effect from a prismatic ray. Next time, I still missed the BBEG's SR with a total check of 31. Harrumph! - Corey
stamhaven 05-06-05, 10:48 PM	The problem everyone seems to have with the spell is that this becomes more abusable the higher level the caster (when tossing in swift acyion 4th level spells. Changing the bonus to +1/2 caster level cap +10 does little to check that. More meaningful checks to its power would be to make it a standard action to cast, cut its duration to 1 round, or capping it lower like +5.
Zeth Starshifter 05-07-05, 01:17 AM	On the other hand, once you reach those higher levels where it would seem abusable, you're fairly likely to make those SR checks with the spell anyway, so it seems moot point..
redraven 05-07-05, 01:53 AM	I'll agree that its powerful in the sense that Scorching Ray and other spells are powerful for their level, but it stills takes up a 4th level spell slot, takes up your swift action for the round (something of an important commodity at higher levels), requires your target to be visible (i.e. defeated by invisibility, hiding, ect., even if you know the foe is there), and typically results in you having lost a spell against their high SR already (unless you knew ahead of time they had a high SR). Besides, if the monster/NPC sole defense against magic was SR, it has more problems than a simple Assay Resistance.
Bopple 05-07-05, 02:03 AM	On the other hand, once you reach those higher levels where it would seem abusable, you're fairly likely to make those SR checks with the spell anyway, so it seems moot point.. Not really. CR20 monsters have SR 30 or so. W/o multiple Spell Power's, Assay Resistance, or Lower Resistance(Spell Vulnerability) it's hard to beat SR.
Bopple 05-07-05, 02:14 AM	but it stills takes up a 4th level spell slot, takes up your swift action for the round (something of an important commodity at higher levels) No, swift action is not its weakness, but its merit. requires your target to be visible (i.e. defeated by invisibility, hiding, ect., even if you know the foe is there) And what other spell can beat invisibility? and typically results in you having lost a spell against their high SR already (unless you knew ahead of time they had a high SR). Most of time, you are to know ahead of time, unless you are suggesting a 17+ lvl mage cannot know of devils, demons, dragons, or some other infamous monsters. And you shouldn't throw your highest lvl spell, against NPCs, for starter. You don't know if he has spell turning or not. Besides, if the monster/NPC sole defense against magic was SR, it has more problems than a simple Assay Resistance. First of all, most monsters have only SR, against magic. Second of all, even if they have other means, that doesn't mean you can devalue SR.
redraven 05-07-05, 02:21 AM	Not really. CR20 monsters have SR 30 or so. Without multiple Spell Power's, Assay Resistance, Lower Resistance, or Spell Vulnerability, it's not easy to beat SR. A CR 20 monster should be faced by a 20th level wizard, who has a 50% of beating the monster's SR 30 without considering feats, items, ect. Each additional Spell Penetration feat would equal a 10% increase in the chance of beating that monster's SR. Assay Resistance thus makes beating average SR (10 + CR) automatic, increases the chance of beating above average SR (15 + CR) by 50%, or makes it possible for the spellcaster to use spells against monsters above their challenge rating. This doesn't seem especially game-breaking unless the only thing which makes the monter challenging is its otherwise difficult SR.
Bopple 05-07-05, 02:26 AM	Yes, it makes automatic success against appropriate CR. On the other hand, ordinary mage fails half the castings. It's somewhat like increasing DC by 10 or so.
redraven 05-07-05, 02:41 AM	No, swift action is not its weakness, but its merit. At the levels were 4th level spells can apparently be tossed around without thought, you should be capable of casting Quickened spells either via metamagic or via metamagic rods, which makes the loss of a swift action important in the opening round of combat. It would depend on the situation, but I would be more inclined to cast a quickened Orb of Acid, Orb of Force, or some protection spell than I would to cast Assay Resistance. And what other spell can beat invisibility? Effect and Area spells. Most of time, you are to know ahead of time, unless you are suggesting a 17+ lvl mage cannot know of devils, demons, dragons, or some other infamous monsters. And you shouldn't throw your highest lvl spell, against NPCs, for starter. You don't know if he has spell turning or not. If a 17th+ level mage is fighting devils/demons/ect, the mage is not likely to be facing just one of those before resting again, which makes Assay Resistance limited and not broken. Your second point is irrelevant, because I wasn't talking about just targeted spells, but rather all types of spells (including Area and Effect spells). First of all, most monsters have only SR, against magic. Second of all, even if they have other means, that doesn't mean you can devalue SR. And most monsters only have AC, against physical attacks. Why isn't everyone up in arms about Wraithstrike, Brilliant Energy, ect? Assay Resistance fills a niche roll, just as True Strike and other spells which let you temporarily bypass the strengths of a monster. It's more likely you have a problem with the power of magic in general, rather than the ability of spellcasters to now bypass (at a cost) a classical defense against it. Yes, it makes automatic success against appropriate CR. On the other hand, ordinary mage fails half the castings. It's somewhat like increasing DC by 10 or so. If the spellcaster takes the Arcane Mastery feat, he/she gets to take a 10 on caster level checks which makes average SR irrelevant. Is Assay Resistance worse than that feat?
Bopple 05-07-05, 03:04 AM	At the levels were 4th level spells can apparently be tossed around without thought, you should be capable of casting Quickened spells either via metamagic or via metamagic rods, which makes the loss of a swift action important in the opening round of combat. It would depend on the situation, but I would be more inclined to cast a quickened Orb of Acid, Orb of Force, or some protection spell than I would to cast Assay Resistance. We are not talking about combat strategy here. It's about swift vs standard action. Swift action is not a disadvantage. It's a merit. Or are you suggesting standard action spell is better than swift action spell? And how can using a +4 metamagic feat or 1 daily use of metamagic rod, be more efficient than casting a 4th lvl swift spell? Effect and Area spells. Then what's the point of orb spell? You suffer miss chance. And don't you use target spells? I'd rather use See Invisibility/Glitterdust, then use area or target spells, as I like. If a 17th+ level mage is fighting devils/demons/ect, the mage is not likely to be facing just one of those before resting again, which makes Assay Resistance limited and not broken. Your second point is irrelevant, because I wasn't talking about just targeted spells, but rather all types of spells (including Area and Effect spells). If you are in a campaign full of demons/devils/ect, then you can prepare more of them. If you are in a campaign with only BBEG demons/devils/ect, then a couple of AR is enough. That doesn't make the spell less powerful, unless you are saying that Holy Word is not powerful, because you can cast it only limited number of times. And most monsters only have AC, against physical attacks. Why isn't everyone up in arms about Wraithstrike, Brilliant Energy, ect? We are talking about Assay Resistance, here. Or, should we be able to make any broken spell, just because we have Holy Word/Blasphemy? Assay Resistance fills a niche roll, just as True Strike and other spells which let you temporarily bypass the strengths of a monster. It's more likely you have a problem with the power of magic in general, rather than the ability of spellcasters to now bypass (at a cost) a classical defense against it. 1. True Strike is only for 1 use. And it's not even a swift action. 2. Wraithstrike or Brilliant Energy is limited, because mages rarely go forward into melee. Brilliant Energy is useless against monsters, since it's effective only against armor/shield AC. 3. SR is very common, and usually the only defense against magic, for most monsters. And beating it, synergizes extremely well with mage's primary ability - spellcasting. If the spellcaster takes the Arcane Mastery feat, he/she gets to take a 10 on caster level checks which makes average SR irrelevant. Is Assay Resistance worse than that feat? A feat is very precious. A 4th lvl spell is much, much cheaper to use.
redraven 05-07-05, 04:29 AM	What are you talking about? We are not talking about combat strategy here. It's about swift vs standard action. Swift action is not a disadvantage. It's a merit. Or are you suggesting standard action spell is better than swift action spell? And how can using a +4 metamagic feat or 1 daily use of metamagic rod, be more efficient than casting a 4th lvl swift spell? Combat strategy is relevant when you make the claim that Assay Resistance is "one of the most overpowered canon spells out there." Since you did not offer a spell to compare it to, then I am forced to invent scenarios. And in this scenario, a spell being a swift action is not a pure or overpowering advantage when it is balanced against a spellcaster's inability to cast other, possibly more relevant swift spells. As for your last comment, I never claimed it was more efficient. Then what's the point of orb spell? You suffer miss chance. And you don't use target spells? I'd rather use See Invisibility/Glitterdust, then use area or target spells, as I like. You asked "what other spell can defeat invisibility" and I answered you. I never made claims about their quality. Furthermore, Glitterdust was a bad example to use, since the target still benefits from total concealment and thus total protection from targeted spells. Hmm? If you are in a campaign full of demons/devils/ect, then you can prepare more of them. If you are in a campaign with only BBEG demons/devils/ect, then a couple of AR is enough. That doesn't make the spell less powerful, unless you are saying that Holy Word is not powerful, because you can cast it only limited number of times. Prepare more of them at the expense of not having any Orb spells, Enervations, or other spells that can directly end the battle by themselves. As for you second scenario, what exactly happens when you don't face any creatures with SR for that day? There is a tradeoff in power which makes Assay Resistance less than "overpowering." Finally, do not engage in the straw man fallacy. I specifically stated that Assay Resistance was powerful for its level in the same what that Scorching Ray was powerful (and Holy Word is powerful). I am arguing against your claim that they are overpowered. We are talking about Assay Resistance, here. Or, should we be able to make any broken spell, just because we have Holy Word/Blasphemy? Right, but the mechanics of the argument are the same. 1. True Strike is only for 1 use. And it's not even a swift action. 2. Wraithstrike or Brilliant Energy is limited, because mages rarely go forward into melee. Brilliant Energy is useless against monsters, since it's effective only against armor/shield AC. 3. SR is very common, and usually the only defense against magic, for most monsters. And beating it synergize extremely well with mage's primary ability - spellcasting. And this is relevant to my argument... how? As I said, it fills a niche roll just like other spells which allow you to temporarily bypass the protections of a monster at a cost. Huh? A feat is very precious. A 4th lvl spell is much, much cheaper to use. Not if you're less than 7th level. Even above 7th level, having a relatively important spell slot taken up by a spell that does nothing on its own is a significant sacrifice.
Bopple 05-07-05, 05:46 AM	Combat strategy is relevant when you make the claim that Assay Resistance is "one of the most overpowered canon spells out there." Since you did not offer a spell to compare it to, then I am forced to invent scenarios. And in this scenario, a spell being a swift action is not a pure or overpowering advantage when it is balanced against a spellcaster's inability to cast other, possibly more relevant swift spells. As for your last comment, I never claimed it was more efficient. Who said it's the only deciding factor, for its power? And don't you remember? You are the one who started talking about swift action. There are some cases swift action is not a really good merit. That doesn't make swift action spell less powerful than a standard action spell. Being swift action means you can prepare at lower lvl, save the usage of metamagic rod, and have more versatility in combat. It IS more powerful than a standard action spell. Period. And if you are not saying it's efficient, then you are arguing it for the sake of arguing. You asked "what other spell can defeat invisibility" and I answered you. I never made claims about their quality. ??? Then what is your point? It was you who started argument about invisibility, again. Furthermore, Glitterdust was a bad example to use, since the target still benefits from total concealment and thus total protection from targeted spells. ??? What are you talking about? Prepare more of them at the expense of not having any Orb spells, Enervations, or other spells that can directly end the battle by themselves. Except for orb spells, you cannot say you are going to end the battle, if you don't have ability to beat SR. On the other hand, AR gives you the guarrantee/control/prediction over the combat. It prevents the unpredictable occurrence, before it happens. As for orb spell, it's one of the most debated spell out there, for its weirdness(regarding the school and interaction with AMF). And force/sound orbs have low damage dice, and you cannot predict which kind of energy resistance you are going to face. Hence, all you can throw in a battle, is 2 orb spells at max. I'd cast AR and cast spells as I like, rather than relying solely on a couple of orbs, then failing other spells. And the specialty for each mage can be various. As for you second scenario, what exactly happens when you don't face any creatures with SR for that day? There is a tradeoff in power which makes Assay Resistance less than "overpowering." There are many spells which are for some kind of insurance. Divinations, Mind Blank, Spell Resistance, Death Ward, MDJ, Freedom of Movement, Teleport, Fly, Water Breathing, Disintegrate or ect. Perhaps you wouldn't need Teleport today. But then again you would. Wouldn't you prepare it? (Heck, there can be sessions of no need for spells at all.) And at that lvl, you are extremely likely to meet high SR monsters. At that lvl, even NPC's tend to have SR. Finally, do not engage in the straw man fallacy. I specifically stated that Assay Resistance was powerful for its level in the same what that Scorching Ray was powerful (and Holy Word is powerful). I am arguing against your claim that they are overpowered Right, but the mechanics of the argument are the same. And this is relevant to my argument... how? As I said, it fills a niche roll just like other spells which allow you to temporarily bypass the protections of a monster at a cost. The problem is, 1. Beating SR is not a niche role at high lvl, at all. It's gonna happen once or twice, in a day. 2. You have to value AR, in itself. Comparing it to others, means little. 3. Even if you are to compare, True Strike, Wraithstrike, or Brilliant Blade are not comparable. They are very limited and not synergistic with casting ability. Not if you're less than 7th level. Even above 7th level, having a relatively important spell slot taken up by a spell that does nothing on its own is a significant sacrifice. Except for some specific campaign situations(Ravenloft, world full of demons like smrtgmp suggests, or ect), a 4th lvl spell is never, ever worth a feat. And even for those campaigns, AR is still useful against BBEG.
redraven 05-09-05, 04:12 AM	Who said it's the only deciding factor, for its power? And don't you remember? You are the one who started talking about swift action. There are some cases swift action is not a really good merit. That doesn't make swift action spell less powerful than a standard action spell. Being swift action means you can prepare at lower lvl, save the usage of metamagic rod, and have more versatility in combat. It IS more powerful than a standard action spell. Period. And if you are not saying it's efficient, then you are arguing it for the sake of arguing. First, no one said it's the only deciding factor, not even me - stop making irrelevant remarks. Moreover, I did not start the discussion on swift actions, as that was already a part of the discussion before I said anything. Further, I never said swift action spells were less powerful than standard action spells - that's a straw man argument on your part. I'm saying they're not inherently overpowered compared to standard action spells. As for your argument that swift action always = more powerful, it does not follow. You first say that "you can prepare at a lower lvl." Lower level than what? There are no higher level equivilents to prepare them, unless you are refering to things like Swift Invisibility and the like, in which case they all have extremely short durations and/or other limitations. As for saving a usage of a metamagic rod and "versatility," that's all depends on the circumstances of the battle or campaign. On another note, remember that you cannot cast Assay Resistance at all if you have already taken up your swift action for the round by any means. While that may be "powerful" if you have no other use for swift actions with class/race/ect. abilities, it is quite a limitation for those that do have them. Finally, "arguing for the sake of arguing?" Please. :rolleyes: ??? Then what is your point? It was you who started argument about invisibility, again. No, you started the "argument" by asking what other spells beat invisibility. I answered you that there are spells that beat invisibility. The "point" is that Assay Resistance acts as a targted spell and suffers the limitations as such (except the ability to be negated by other effects, such as Spell Turning). ??? What are you talking about? You said you'd "rather use See Invisibility/Glitterdust, then use area or target spells, as I like." If you use See Invisibility, then you can see and target everyone normally. Good example. Glitterdust, however, doesn't let you target affected people, and has a shorter range than most area spells. Bad example. Except for orb spells, you cannot say you are going to end the battle, if you don't have ability to beat SR. On the other hand, AR gives you the guarrantee/control/prediction over the combat. It prevents the unpredictable occurrence, before it happens. What's your point? Other spells give you a guarantee/control/prediction over combat, and they don't allow SR either. Is Evard's Black Tentacles overpowered? Is Freezing Fog (non-core, but Assay Resistance is non-core too) overpowered? As for orb spell, it's one of the most debated spell out there, for its weirdness(regarding the school and interaction with AMF). And force/sound orbs have low damage dice, and you cannot predict which kind of energy resistance you are going to face. Hence, all you can throw in a battle, is 2 orb spells at max. I'd cast AR and cast spells as I like, rather than relying solely on a couple of orbs, then failing other spells. And the specialty for each mage can be various. If you can predict that a creature has SR, you can also predict their energy immunities, unless you are metagaming the former. As for your next point, this would be a good question to ask: what spells are you using in conjunction with Assay Resistance that you believe make it (Assay Resistance) overpowered? There are many spells which are for some kind of insurance. Divinations, Mind Blank, Spell Resistance, Death Ward, MDJ, Freedom of Movement, Teleport, Fly, Water Breathing, Disintegrate or ect. Perhaps you wouldn't need Teleport today. But then again you would. Wouldn't you prepare it? (Heck, there can be sessions of no need for spells at all.) Right, but every Assay Resistance is one less Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, or any other 4th level spell. I'm saying there are costs and limitations associated with Assay Resistance, which do not make it overpowered. And at that lvl, you are extremely likely to meet high SR monsters. At that lvl, even NPC's tend to have SR. True, but that's really sort of metagaming. The problem is, 1. Beating SR is not a niche role at high lvl, at all. It's gonna happen once or twice, in a day. 2. You have to value AR, in itself. Comparing it to others, means little. 3. Even if you are to compare, True Strike, Wraithstrike, or Brilliant Blade are not comparable. They are very limited and not synergistic with casting ability. 1. Campaign specific. 2. If a spellcaster only had Assay Resistance to fill their 4th level spells, sure, Assay Resistance might be overpowered. However, 4th level is a busy level for good arcane spells/good divine protections, not to mention the normal level to make use of Still/Silent spells and such for useful 3rd level spells. 3. They are comparable considering they do the same thing to different defenses. Sure, Assay Resistance has more synergy, and that's why I already admitted it was a powerful spell. Just not overpowered. Except for some specific campaign situations(Ravenloft, world full of demons like smrtgmp suggests, or ect), a 4th lvl spell is never, ever worth a feat. And even for those campaigns, AR is still useful against BBEG. This contradicts your earlier statement that you'll be "extremely likely" to be meeting high SR monsters at the upper levels. If Assay Resistance is overpowered, how about a feat that gives you the basic benefits of it on every spell you ever cast at any target, with no action on your part or loss of a spell slot? This is in addition to it allowing you to make Dispel checks and such as if you always rolled a 10 (and other application of caster-level checks). The only time Assay Resistance is better than Arcane Mastery is in the cases of monsters/NPCs which have SR greater than 10+CR, or if you're fighting things above your challenge rating. Off hand, I cannot think of an example beyond someone casting Spell Resistance. I also wanted to address this: I find using metamagic as a guide for judging balance useful here with quicken built in. If a cantrip could plausibly do the same thing with a standard action casting time then I'd consider it balance but I don't think +10 spell penetration for 1 round per level sounds like a fair 0 level spell. I think equating a swift action spell with Quicken spells is the wrong way to go, as evidenced by spells like Swift Invisibility and Swift Fly. Rather, we should look at a standard action casting of some spell, perhaps Greater Assay Resistance, at a level or two higher and greater effects. Maybe a 6th level spell that grants a +10 bonus to caster level checks to beat SR for 1 minute/level versus any number of targets within range. Something like that.
Bopple 05-09-05, 07:51 AM	First, no one said it's the only deciding factor, not even me - stop making irrelevant remarks. Combat strategy is relevant when you make the claim that Assay Resistance is "one of the most overpowered canon spells out there." Since you did not offer a spell to compare it to, then I am forced to invent scenarios. And in this scenario, a spell being a swift action is not a pure or overpowering advantage when it is balanced against a spellcaster's inability to cast other, possibly more relevant swift spells. As for your last comment, I never claimed it was more efficient. Look. You were assuming I said it's overpowering because it's a swift action, and answering on that basis. Now, that is my fault? :rolleyes: And isn't it arguing for the sake of arguing, when you argue over what none has said? As for your argument that swift action always = more powerful, it does not follow. You first say that "you can prepare at a lower lvl." Lower level than what? you should be capable of casting Quickened spells either via metamagic ...? As for saving a usage of a metamagic rod and "versatility," that's all depends on the circumstances of the battle or campaign. That's a vain argument, unless you price items on circumstantial value. And what is not circumstantial, anyway? On another note, remember that you cannot cast Assay Resistance at all if you have already taken up your swift action for the round by any means. While that may be "powerful" if you have no other use for swift actions with class/race/ect. abilities, it is quite a limitation for those that do have them. No. As you have AR as swift action. You can save a high lvl slot or your metamagic rod charge.(be it AR or other spells) Finally, "arguing for the sake of arguing?" Please. :rolleyes: See above. No, you started the "argument" by asking what other spells beat invisibility. requires your target to be visible ...... And you are missing the point. Except for area spells, all the spells are subject to invisibility(actually, area spells also are partially affected. if you don't know where enemies are, you don't know where to shoot them). It is pointless to count it as a weakness, when all the spells have the same quality. Glitterdust, however, doesn't let you target affected people, and has a shorter range than most area spells. Bad example. Do your homework. Please. What's your point? Other spells give you a guarantee/control/prediction over combat, and they don't allow SR either. Is Evard's Black Tentacles overpowered? Is Freezing Fog (non-core, but Assay Resistance is non-core too) overpowered? Again, you are making the same mistake. Have I ever said it's the only deciding factor? And Black Tentacle, Freezing Fog, Orbs, are all low lvl spells. But with AR, you can throw the most efficient/high lvl spells, as you like. If you can predict that a creature has SR, you can also predict their energy immunities, unless you are metagaming the former. ...? How can you predict which kind of energy immunity you are going to face today? As for your next point, this would be a good question to ask: what spells are you using in conjunction with Assay Resistance that you believe make it (Assay Resistance) overpowered? Any offensive spell that is thrown after AR. Don't you see it? It doubles the success rate. In 3.5, spell DC increase is extremely hard to get. AR virtually gives you that. Right, but every Assay Resistance is one less Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, or any other 4th level spell. I'm saying there are costs and limitations associated with Assay Resistance, which do not make it overpowered. As I said before, that's irrelevant. Occupying a slot doesn't make it less powerful. Taking up a slot is the very basic nature of every single spell. True, but that's really sort of metagaming. Expecting SR is metagaming? Then expecting high AC is also metagaming. 1. Campaign specific. ...? Actually it's quite the opposite. Yes, there can be a world full of demons. Or a world with no SR. But statistically, in most campaigns, you are to face SR, a couple, in a day. 2. If a spellcaster only had Assay Resistance to fill their 4th level spells, sure, Assay Resistance might be overpowered. However, 4th level is a busy level for good arcane spells/good divine protections, Same again, taking up a slot is not a weakness. It's a nature of magic. And you can have spells in a higher slot, if it's very useful. Most of all, you have to compare it to other offensive spells, not to protection spells, because it competes with them, for a slot. I'd rather have 1 or 2 AR over surplus orb or enervation, in my any day. And most would agree with me. not to mention the normal level to make use of Still/Silent spells and such for useful 3rd level spells. Not really relevant. Still/silent spells are needed only for escaping and deceiving. You need only a couple of them. And that doesn't have to be 4th lvl. 3. They are comparable considering they do the same thing to different defenses. Sure, Assay Resistance has more synergy, and that's why I already admitted it was a powerful spell. Just not overpowered. And as I have said, True Strike, Wraithstrike, and Brilliant Blade are very limited, compared to AR. They are weak examples to prove AR is not overpowered, This contradicts your earlier statement that you'll be "extremely likely" to be meeting high SR monsters at the upper levels. If Assay Resistance is overpowered, how about a feat that gives you the basic benefits of it on every spell you ever cast at any target, with no action on your part or loss of a spell slot? This is in addition to it allowing you to make Dispel checks and such as if you always rolled a 10 (and other application of caster-level checks. The only time Assay Resistance is better than Arcane Mastery is in the cases of monsters/NPCs which have SR greater than 10+CR, or if you're fighting things above your challenge rating. Off hand, I cannot think of an example beyond someone casting Spell Resistance. The point of AR is, giving you automatic/near automatic SR penetration, without wasting a round or a spell. But Arcane Mastery doesn't provide that. SR is not fixed 30. It varies from 28 to 32. And more so from Spell Resistance spell. Against 28, Arcane Mastery is 100% success. Against 32, it's 100% failure. It's same with dispelling. It's 100% success against lower CL. But against higher CL, it's 100% failure. Arcane Mastery is strong against the weak, but zero against the strong. But AR usually offers you 100% of success rate and 90% at least. I think equating a swift action spell with Quicken spells is the wrong way to go, as evidenced by spells like Swift Invisibility and Swift Fly. Rather, we should look at a standard action casting of some spell, perhaps Greater Assay Resistance, at a level or two higher and greater effects. Maybe a 6th level spell that grants a +10 bonus to caster level checks to beat SR for 1 minute/level versus any number of targets within range. Something like that. It is of no use to argue over non-existent. It's comparable to Quickened Invisibility and Quickened Fly, because AR is not a crippled spell like Swift Invisibility or Swift Fly. And minute-wise offensive spell is pointless. Combats end in a matter of rounds. Only buff spells need longer duration. What makes a spell powerful? Reliable/consistent ability to kill a stronger foe quickly. Facilitating killing a weak foe, is not a sign of power. That's why 3.0 Holy Word was a joke. And why 3.5 Holy Word is a 'joke'. And aside the power factor, there is a matter of unfairness. AR and orb spells(yes, I think orb spells are also off power and out of logic) favor players more. Sure, you may face NPC's with AR and orbs. That's fine. But monsters, on the other hand, have no such means. Their foremost defense against magic, is now crippled. That's why I hate orbs, AR, and Spell Vulnerability(Lower Resistance).
smrtgmp 05-09-05, 08:00 AM	So you think the orb spells are overpowered too? Finally they give us some DD spells that are actually worth casting and you hate them? I'm just glad they published a few damaging spells that arent a complete waste of paper.
Bopple 05-09-05, 08:04 AM	I don't think orb spells are really overpowered. I think it's on the verge of it. BTW, I think there should be some boost for DD spells. What I hate about orb spells is, they don't scale with other DD spells, due to trumping SR/save. And it doesn't make sense for categorization, either. They should have rebuilt the system. Unbalancing the system by crippling SR with a couple of spells, is a bad thing to do.
stamhaven 05-09-05, 08:10 AM	I think equating a swift action spell with Quicken spells is the wrong way to go, as evidenced by spells like Swift Invisibility and Swift Fly. Rather, we should look at a standard action casting of some spell, perhaps Greater Assay Resistance, at a level or two higher and greater effects. Maybe a 6th level spell that grants a +10 bonus to caster level checks to beat SR for 1 minute/level versus any number of targets within range. Something like that. Swift fly and invisibilty are great reasons why quicken is a decent comparison. Look at the effects of those spells compared to the generic versions they both take a major hit in effectiveness to balance benefit of a change of casting time to a swift action (minute per level -> 1 round, creature touched -> personal). Also not swift invisibility and haste are not even availible to sorcerer/wizards (haste is ranger only and loosing multiple targets and range to personal is a major power hit). You just have to take it as part of the spell as a whole in these examples the signifigant pwoer of making the casting time swift seemed to require a major nerf to nearly every other aspect (sometimes including spell list). The method isn't foolproof, it's just a deccent test to gage the power of something to the right ballpark. Empower is a nice way to gague damaging spells (empowered scorching rays vs orb spells are decent comparisons, as is empowered fireballs to cone of cold), delay spell with delayed blast fireball, chain spell with chain lightning. These don't line up exactly but when you take the differences in stride and most of these examples balance out. It's not the whole equasion, just a useful part of it. How useful would feather fall be if is wereent an immidiate action (not completely useless but FAR less useful)? What level spell would you put this, swift fly, invisibility, and haste with casting times of a standard action? Personally I'd call a +10 to SP for a fight as a 2nd or 3rd level spell, not useful all the time but in some situations I would certainly pick it and cast it. What level would you put a swift truestrike against one target that granted +10 only (I'd bet you a nickle most people start that exercise by thinking, well a quickened regular true strike is a 5th level wizard slot....)? I think this thread has gone beyond much chance of persuasion, clearly there is a difference of opinion of the usefulness of the spell. Clearly some think it's not too powerful and enjoy keeping it in their arsenal of spells, while others don't want it to go near their games as printed.
smrtgmp 05-09-05, 08:48 AM	What I hate about orb spells is, they don't scale with other DD spells.Meaning what? They follow the damage caps for single target 4th level arcane spells. Finally, the matter of trumping SR/save altogether.I can see being upset about SR, but a save? Come on, you have to roll to hit, which is not easy for a poor BAB caster, regardless of the fact its a touch attack. Factor in the -4 for firing into melee and the +4 soft cover bonus that your allies are likely to provide and that touch AC just got a lot harder to hit. If the spell allowed a save it would be a worthless piece of crap. Why cast a single target spell that requires an attack roll and allows a save when you could just cast an area effect spell and hit more than one thing? Unbalancing the system by crippling SR with a couple of spells, is a bad thing to do. The orb spells dont unbalance anything. Wow, a spellcaster can do some damage that is difficult to resist. Oh my god, the game is falling apart. I mean really, whats the problem here? Even at 15th level, you're only averaging 52.5 points of damage. Thats nothing. The party tank will easily dwarf that. ****, the halfling paladin in the game I run does something like 5d6+90 points of damage on a charging crit (with full power attack wielding lance 2 handed). Did I mention he's 6th level? At the next level, assuming the party mage picks up an orb spell (lets say force, since its better at early levels), he could do an average of 24.5 damage, and that would take one of his two 4th level slots. Thats not nearly as scary as what he could do with several other 4th level spells. As far as I'm concerned, evervation, black tentacles, polymorph, and solid fog (just to name a few) are more effective than the orb spells in a vast majority of situations.
Bopple 05-09-05, 09:07 AM	Meaning what? They follow the damage caps for single target 4th level arcane spells. Well, I edited the post, while you were writing the reply. I wasn't talking about actual damage dice, but about effective avg damage done, factoring SR/save together. I can see being upset about SR, but a save? Come on, you have to roll to hit, which is not easy for a poor BAB caster, regardless of the fact its a touch attack. Factor in the -4 for firing into melee and the +4 soft cover bonus that your allies are likely to provide and that touch AC just got a lot harder to hit. If the spell allowed a save it would be a worthless piece of crap. Why cast a single target spell that requires an attack roll and allows a save when you could just cast an area effect spell and hit more than one thing? I wasn't picking on save. I know there is a matter of hitting with rays.(and when you throw a important ray spell, you cast true strike anyway) I was talking about it in a matter of composition of SR/save(because hitting is a physical matter, while SR & save are magical matter. removing both of them causes the poor categorization), and vs ordinary rays(SR/nosave). The orb spells dont unbalance anything. Wow, a spellcaster can do some damage that is difficult to resist. Oh my god, the game is falling apart. I mean really, whats the problem here? Unbalancing != falling apart. The whole SR system is now a mongrel, due to orbs and SR penetrating spells. How can you justify the high price of SR item or difference of benefit PC and monsters gain, with these? Yes, orb is not game-breaking, considering the damage. But still it's better than other DD spells. And it's off-system. It's contributing to make the system start to look like a patchwork doll like AD&D. Where has the ambitious goal of standardization gone? And your unwarranted sarcasm gets us nowhere. Even at 15th level, you're only averaging 52.5 points of damage. Thats nothing. The party tank will easily dwarf that. ****, the halfling paladin in the game I run does something like 5d6+90 points of damage on a charging crit (with full power attack wielding lance 2 handed). Did I mention he's 6th level? BTW, I think there should be some boost for DD spells. At the next level, assuming the party mage picks up an orb spell (lets say force, since its better at early levels), he could do an average of 24.5 damage, and that would take one of his two 4th level slots. Thats not nearly as scary as what he could do with several other 4th level spells. As far as I'm concerned, evervation, black tentacles, polymorph, and solid fog (just to name a few) are more effective than the orb spells in a vast majority of situations. Same as above.
Bopple 05-09-05, 09:25 AM	BTW, I understand why they capped the DD damage so tight. Massive damage is the only thing that noncasters can do. And another factor is, DD spells synergize very well with physical damage, unlike save-or-die spells. I am no expert of math. But I think there should be some statistical balance of avg rounds needed to finish a battle, when using DD spells and save-or-die spells. Though I don't know at which point it should be decided.
Stormwalkr 05-09-05, 01:15 PM	Soooo it doesn't. I'm sorry this turned into a flame war, but that part of the spell was missing. Thanks for the early posts.
primemover003 05-09-05, 05:07 PM	I can see being upset about SR, but a save? Come on, you have to roll to hit, which is not easy for a poor BAB caster, regardless of the fact its a touch attack. Factor in the -4 for firing into melee and the +4 soft cover bonus that your allies are likely to provide and that touch AC just got a lot harder to hit. I don't know, if the Caster has even a decent Dex score this is non-issue. Touch AC's are ridiculously low.
smrtgmp 05-09-05, 06:33 PM	How can you justify the high price of SR item or difference of benefit PC and monsters gain, with these?Even without the orb spells those items are a rip off. Assuming your DM follows the pricing guidelines, by the time you can afford those items creatures of equal CR will blow through them nearly every time. I've never seen a PC purchace one of those, and I doubt I ever will. I certainly wouldnt buy one. Yes, orb is not game-breaking, considering the damage. But still it's better than other DD spells.Yes, but other DD spells suck. Thats like bragging you're smarter than Bush. And it's off-system. It's contributing to make the system start to look like a patchwork doll like AD&D. Where has the ambitious goal of standardization gone?Hmmm...this is a legitimate complaint. And your unwarranted sarcasm gets us nowhere.Come now, thats not fair. It got me a cheap laugh at someone elses expense. ;) j/k. sorry for the flippant attitute. I can be a sarcastic SOB at times, especially when I think someone is complaining about something I feel pointless (like a DD spell being too powerful when there are several other spells of the same level that dwarf its power).
smrtgmp 05-09-05, 06:42 PM	I don't know, if the Caster has even a decent Dex score this is non-issue. Touch AC's are ridiculously low. False. Touch ACs are low, but casters generally lack the feats to use ranged attacks effectively in combat. Take my telepath for instace. I was an elf, so had a 16 dex. thats +3. Due to presige classes, I had a BAB of +4 at 10th level. That gives me a +7 to hit with a ranged touch attack. As firing into melee gives me a -4, I'm now I'm at a +3. Even if they have a touch AC of 10 (pretty common for all but the largest enemies), I need a 7 or higher to hit, which means I miss about a third of the time. Thats a best case scenario. If we're in combat in a tight spot (say, I dont know, a dungeon), then chances are one of may allies is between me and the enemy (at least I hope they are, otherwise I would be a charge-kabob). That gives the enemy an extra +4 soft cover bonus to their touch AC, making it a 14. So, with my deific +3 to hit, I have to roll an 11 or higher, which means I'm missing 50% of the time. Not exactly a sure thing. Granted, you could pick up point blank shot and precise shot, but generally speaking casters dont have a ton of feats to throw around on garbage like that. IMO, touch ACs were a lame attempt to make low BAB spellcasters better able to hit with a spell. What I'll never understand is why your BAB with spells is equal to that of your BAB with weapons. I can understand a wizard sucking with a sword, but not with a spell. IMO you should have two different attack bonuses. One for weapons, one for spells. I like the way spells like Mord's Sword handle things. Give them a higher BAB with their spells and make them hit the same AC as everyone else.
redraven 05-10-05, 12:53 AM	Look. You were assuming I said it's overpowering because it's a swift action, and answering on that basis. Now, that is my fault? And isn't it arguing for the sake of arguing, when you argue over what none has said? Let's go back to the beginning. You stated this: One of the most overpowered canon spells out there. Effective against only 1. But that's nothing. We don't face multiple high SR enemies. Mostly, only one of them - BBEG - has high SR. So, at this point, you made the claim that it is one of the most overpowered spells out there. You have not explicitly specified why its overpowered in your eyes, but have stated that it being limited to a single target does not detract from its power at all. Your statement is campaign specific, which means it doesn't really say anything about the overall power of the spell. I then made my original statement, to which you replied the following: No, swift action is not its weakness, but its merit. And what other spell can beat invisibility? Most of time, you are to know ahead of time, [...] And you shouldn't throw your highest lvl spell, against NPCs, for starter. You don't know if he has spell turning or not. First of all, most monsters have only SR, against magic. Second of all, even if they have other means, that doesn't mean you can devalue SR. Out of this, my impression of your argument was that Assay Resistance was overpowered due to: Its swift action casting time. No drawbacks at all (only one target, must see target, ect, are meaningless). Bypassing a monster/some NPCs only defense against magic. I have been answering as such. If these were not your reasons for stating Assay Resistance are overpowered, then either I have misunderstood or you have been unclear. To clear up any confusion, I now ask you: why do you think Assay Resistance is overpowered as opposed to simply powerful? [confusion about my "As for your argument that swift action always = more powerful, it does not follow. You first say that 'you can prepare at a lower lvl.' Lower level than what?" statement] What I meant was, for example, that a Swift Fireball is a 7th level spell (via metamagic) versus spells that start out swift, such as the 1st level Swift Fly. You cannot make a Swift Fireball any lower than at least the spell level it appeared at, so your argument that a swift action always means its more powerful does not follow. All the Swift spells have built-in limitations on their power as evidenced by the ones that have higher-level counterparts. There is no reason to presume at the outset that Assay Resistance is any different unless you hold some warped opinion of the WoC designers (e.g. Spells are assumed unbalanced until proven otherwise). No. As you have AR as swift action. You can save a high lvl slot or your metamagic rod charge.(be it AR or other spells) Incorrect. From the D&D Glossary: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. If you have any class/race features, magic items, or anything else at all which take a swift action to activate (and there are many now that free actions are getting extremely limited), you cannot cast Assay Resistance until your next round. Since we both agree that combat usually lasts for only a few rounds, this is an important point. ...... And you are missing the point. Except for area spells, all the spells are subject to invisibility(actually, area spells also are partially affected. if you don't know where enemies are, you don't know where to shoot them). It is pointless to count it as a weakness, when all the spells have the same quality. They are subject to invisibility, yes, but that was not what you asked. Area and Effect spells can beat invisibility. Do your homework. Please. Thanks for the personal attack, but you are (arguably) wrong: [...]and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. Since a visible object stays visible when an invisible creature picks it up (at least until the invisible creature tucks the object into its clothing), you may make an invisible thing visible (or at least reveal its location) by dousing it with something visible. [...] A direct hit leaves an invisible creature smeared with flour, which reveals the creature's location. Glitterdust will certainly reveal which square your foe is in, but it does not defeat the invisibility effect. You can see an outline of a foe, but you cannot actually see the foe, which is necessary for targeted spells. Again, you are making the same mistake. Have I ever said it's the only deciding factor? And Black Tentacle, Freezing Fog, Orbs, are all low lvl spells. But with AR, you can throw the most efficient/high lvl spells, as you like. [...] Any offensive spell that is thrown after AR. Don't you see it? It doubles the success rate. In 3.5, spell DC increase is extremely hard to get. AR virtually gives you that. [...] As I said before, that's irrelevant. Occupying a slot doesn't make it less powerful. Taking up a slot is the very basic nature of every single spell. You are not getting my point. My point is that in addition to the costs of a higher level spell, you are having to use your only swift action to cast a 4th level spell. Want to cast Holy Word? It now takes a 7th level slot + 4th level slot + swift action for the round. Further, this 4th level spell only removes/lessens Spell Resistance, not saves or touch ACs which are arguably more important unless you are casting Power Word spells (which have HP limitations). Assay Resistance does not make spells "sure things" similar to raising save DCs - it merely gives you a greater chance to force a save against a creature you may not have been able to force a save against. In other words, it removes only a single barrier and only does so at a relatively significant cost. At least, significant enough in my eyes to have it not be called "overpowered." ...? How can you predict which kind of energy immunity you are going to face today? The same way you're predicting SR. Expecting SR is metagaming? Then expecting high AC is also metagaming. The analogy is lacking but, yes, that is also metagaming depending on the reasoning behind the expectation. ...? Actually it's quite the opposite. Yes, there can be a world full of demons. Or a world with no SR. But statistically, in most campaigns, you are to face SR, a couple, in a day. Statistically? Where are these statistics you are using? Unless you can produce such statistics, admit that it is entirely campaign specific. Most of all, you have to compare it to other offensive spells, not to protection spells, because it competes with them, for a slot. I'd rather have 1 or 2 AR over surplus orb or enervation, in my any day. And most would agree with me. No, it competes with every spell in the 4th level slot. Your personal battle tactics are irrelevant to this discussion as I can submit battle tactics that are just the opposite. Not really relevant. Still/silent spells are needed only for escaping and deceiving. You need only a couple of them. And that doesn't have to be 4th lvl. Those were examples. You could also use Empowered 2nd level spells, Heightened spells, and so on. The point is that 4th level spell slots aren't "free." But Arcane Mastery doesn't provide that. SR is not fixed 30. It varies from 28 to 32. And more so from Spell Resistance spell. Who said SR is fixed at 30? I'm saying that the vast majority of creatures with SR have SR 10+CR. In fact, I cannot even think of one example of a monster that does not have SR 10+CR. It is of no use to argue over non-existent. It's comparable to Quickened Invisibility and Quickened Fly, because AR is not a crippled spell like Swift Invisibility or Swift Fly. And minute-wise offensive spell is pointless. Combats end in a matter of rounds. Only buff spells need longer duration. They're only "crippled" if you attempt to use them in ways they were not obviously intended. Swift Invisibility was not meant to let you sneak into the bandit's camp. It's a means to move around the battlefield with impunity for a round and then get a free sneak attack. Similar with Swift Fly - it's meant to allow brief battlefield maneuverability and/or escape (terrain permitting). You cannot compare Quickened Invisibility and other spells with inherently Swift spells because the mechanics which govern them are not the same - for one thing, the former kind are altered via metamagic feats. What makes a spell powerful? Reliable/consistent ability to kill a stronger foe quickly. Facilitating killing a weak foe, is not a sign of power. That's why 3.0 Holy Word was a joke. And why 3.5 Holy Word is a 'joke'. In your opinion. And aside the power factor, there is a matter of unfairness. AR and orb spells(yes, I think orb spells are also off power and out of logic) favor players more. Sure, you may face NPC's with AR and orbs. That's fine. But monsters, on the other hand, have no such means. Their foremost defense against magic, is now crippled. That's why I hate orbs, AR, and Spell Vulnerability(Lower Resistance). Unfair? Please. Further, this debate would have been entirely cleared up if you had made known your personal feeling that SR is so completely important to monsters (as I beg to differ) at the outset instead of simply saying Assay Resistance is "overpowered."
solbergb 05-10-05, 01:55 AM	Personally I find the fact that monsters only go up one CR per 3 or 4 hit dice (meaning each CR they get a feat and often a stat bump, just to name one effect of this) is more significant than their SR. Even on their "bad" save, the save goes up 1 per CR (1/3) and their good save goes up sometimes 2 points per cr (2/4). Plus statbumps+feats Save DC's go up 1/2 CR, plus statbumps+feats. What this means is at low levels you can stick a spell even if your DC's are medeocre, but at high levels, versus "monsters" you need to hit their weakness with your strength and even then you'll quite often waste an action as they save. SR makes it somewhat more of a crapshoot. This, by the way, is probably supposed to somewhat balance the whole "warriors suck vs spellcasters" thing, as spellcasters have a harder time sticking spells, but get more powerful spells. Of course the ability of a spellcaster to morph into a warrior is a lot of the problem. Frankly anything that encourages a high level caster to actually cast a spell on the enemy rather than steal the limelight from the fighter is probably a good thing. Especially as I've always found it kind of goofy that many high level fights consist of a bunch of polymorphed PC's vs equally weird monsters. Not exactly St George and the Dragon. Now me, I have a beef with all those direct damage/no SR conjuration spells that steal the thunder of Evocation. Acid arrow was ok, it was significantly weaker than its competitor Searing Ray (aside from the whole short range vs long range thing). The orb spells are kind of irritating and the area conjuration direct damage spells are just annoying. I like the swift action spells. They mean spontaneous casters have a way to make use of their "quickened" action without blowing a feat on it and having to behave like a prepared caster. They also tend to work better for spont casters, since a spell like sudden fly is terrific if you have plenty of slots and can cast it exactly as often as you need it, but has a huge opportunity cost if each slot taken by it is not available for other things. Most wizards I've seen who like Assay Resistance memorize it only once, and save it for the big bad. A sorcerer who fits it into spells known can use it on anything he remotely suspects of having spell resistance, but that's a round he isn't getting to sudden fly, or use guided shot, or whatever other swift action tricks he has up his sleeve.
redraven 05-10-05, 02:51 AM	^ That pretty much sums up my entire opinion on this subject. The only note I'd want to add is that the Orb spells were really inevitable - psionics had Crystal Shard, which was incredibly powerful and without arcane peer until the Orb spells came along.
Bopple 05-10-05, 03:16 AM	I then made my original statement, to which you replied the following: Quoting again; And in this scenario, a spell being a swift action is not a pure or overpowering advantage As you said, I was merely replied to your post. I never said nor implied it's the deciding factor. But you assumed wrong. What I meant was, for example, that a Swift Fireball is a 7th level spell (via metamagic) versus spells that start out swift, such as the 1st level Swift Fly. You cannot make a Swift Fireball any lower than at least the spell level it appeared at, so your argument that a swift action always means its more powerful does not follow. All the Swift spells have built-in limitations on their power as evidenced by the ones that have higher-level counterparts. There is no reason to presume at the outset that Assay Resistance is any different unless you hold some warped opinion of the WoC designers (e.g. Spells are assumed unbalanced until proven otherwise). Please stop comparing it to swift spells. It has no built-in limitation unlike others. Tell me, which is more powerful? A Quickened Fireball, or an ordinary Fireball? Incorrect. From the D&D Glossary: If you have any class/race features, magic items, or anything else at all which take a swift action to activate (and there are many now that free actions are getting extremely limited), you cannot cast Assay Resistance until your next round. Since we both agree that combat usually lasts for only a few rounds, this is an important point. You still don't get it. If you are to cast a swift spell, you can save metamagic feat or rod on other spell. They are subject to invisibility, yes, but that was not what you asked. Area and Effect spells can beat invisibility. A: I need food. B: I know, but who doesn't? A: Robots. B: WTF? A: You asked. Glitterdust will certainly reveal which square your foe is in, but it does not defeat the invisibility effect. You can see an outline of a foe, but you cannot actually see the foe, which is necessary for targeted spells. I have never seen it ruled like that. Actually you are the first person who think like that. You opened up my eyes and showed me a new world. BTW, do you know it imposes -40 penalty on hiding? With -40 penalty, you can spot & locate him anyway. But it reveals the location only. Yeah. You are not getting my point. My point is that in addition to the costs of a higher level spell, you are having to use your only swift action to cast a 4th level spell. As I said above, since it's a swift spell, you don't have to quicken other spells. And for sorcerers, swift spells are godsend. Further, this 4th level spell only removes/lessens Spell Resistance, not saves or touch ACs which are arguably more important unless you are casting Power Word spells (which have HP limitations). Assay Resistance does not make spells "sure things" similar to raising save DCs - it merely gives you a greater chance to force a save against a creature you may not have been able to force a save against. In other words, it removes only a single barrier and only does so at a relatively significant cost. At least, significant enough in my eyes to have it not be called "overpowered." Call it whatever you like. But the end result is same. It doubles the success rate. The same way you're predicting SR. The analogy is lacking but, yes, that is also metagaming depending on the reasoning behind the expectation. I cannot possibly imagine how those can be same. Expecting high AC or SR = predicting exact energy immunity type? Please. Statistically? Where are these statistics you are using? Unless you can produce such statistics, admit that it is entirely campaign specific. You are saying, in an ordinary campaign, at high lvl, you don't face SR at all, right? Would we make a vote for this? I am quite sure most would agree with me. Hell, people wouldn't even show an interest in it, since it's too obvious & dull. I know men are tougher than women, though I cannot prove it statistically. Sure some women are stronger than some men. But that doesn't change the average. No, it competes with every spell in the 4th level slot. Your personal battle tactics are irrelevant to this discussion as I can submit battle tactics that are just the opposite. So do you prepare surplus offensive spells rather than having necessary defensive spells? Those were examples. You could also use Empowered 2nd level spells, Heightened spells, and so on. The point is that 4th level spell slots aren't "free." Then what slot and level is free? You are pretending it's applicable only to AR. Again, everyone's limit is no one's limit. Who said SR is fixed at 30? I'm saying that the vast majority of creatures with SR have SR 10+CR. In fact, I cannot even think of one example of a monster that does not have SR 10+CR. All the devils and most celestials have SR of more than 10+CR. Some other outsiders, constructs, undeads, titan, tarrasque, and NPC's, too. They're only "crippled" if you attempt to use them in ways they were not obviously intended. Swift Invisibility was not meant to let you sneak into the bandit's camp. It's a means to move around the battlefield with impunity for a round and then get a free sneak attack. Similar with Swift Fly - it's meant to allow brief battlefield maneuverability and/or escape (terrain permitting). You cannot compare Quickened Invisibility and other spells with inherently Swift spells because the mechanics which govern them are not the same - for one thing, the former kind are altered via metamagic feats. This is totally meaningless, unless you can show me the official 'Swift Assay Resistance' and new/standard version 'Assay Resistance'. In your opinion. Then tell me yours. Unfair? Please. Then tell me how can it be fair to affect monsters and PC's different? Further, this debate would have been entirely cleared up if you had made known your personal feeling that SR is so completely important to monsters (as I beg to differ) at the outset instead of simply saying Assay Resistance is "overpowered." Of course if you can tell me how doubling spell success rate with a nosave swift action 4th lvl spell, is not overpowered.
smrtgmp 05-10-05, 03:43 AM	...psionics had Crystal Shard, which was incredibly powerful and without arcane peer until the Orb spells came along.Crystal Shard is only useful on a regular basis at low levels. Once you can spend 7+pp while manifeting a power, crystal shard quickly becomes sub-optimal and little more than a back up power to be used against golems and other creatures that are highly resistant to regualar magical/psionic attacks.
redraven 05-10-05, 05:43 AM	Please stop comparing it to swift spells. It has no built-in limitation unlike others. Tell me, which is more powerful? A Quickened Fireball, or an ordinary Fireball? Oh? The only thing that's different is there isn't a "parent spell" to look at - this does not mean there are no built-in limitations at all. Indeed I have been listing several. You still don't get it. If you are to cast a swift spell, you can save metamagic feat or rod on other spell. Not for that round, as Quickened spells are swift actions too. Further, you're not "saving higher level spells" as you stated earlier because there are not higher level equivalents for Assay Resistance. If you were talking about neither of those points, then you are the one who didn't get it and replied to something completely unrelated. I have never seen it ruled like that. Actually you are the first person who think like that. You opened up my eyes and showed me a new world. BTW, do you know it imposes -40 penalty on hiding? With -40 penalty, you can spot & locate him anyway. But it reveals the location only. Yeah. You learn something new everyday. Be cool, stay in school. By the way, an invisible creature has total concealment per the Glossery. Glitterdust does not negate total concealment - it merely outlines invisible creature's location (i.e. square). Unless, of course, you're arguing that the invisible creature no longer gets a miss chance at all. And the -40 Hide check penalty? It takes a DC 40 Spot check to pinpoint an invisible creature's location if it moved in the last round, and DC 50 if it didn't. This doesn't let you "see" the creature enough to shoot off Targeted spells, just to know precisely which square he is in. Of course, this also brings us back all the way to my original point about Glitterdust being a bad example: if you know where an invisible creature is good enough to hit it in a 10-ft. radius burst, you can hit it with a 30-ft. radius Fireball or similar Area magic. As I said above, since it's a swift spell, you don't have to quicken other spells. There isn't a standard action Assay Resistance, so your point is moot. Call it whatever you like. But the end result is same. It doubles the success rate. Success rate of the SR check, nothing else. I cannot possibly imagine how those can be same. Expecting high AC or SR = predicting exact energy immunity type? Please. They are all campaign specific metagaming. You expect that the next batch of monsters you face will likely have SR and a high AC. Why? Is it based on any discernable quality of the game world, or is it based on the fact that your DM has been throwing SR and high AC creatures at you? For all you know, you'll be facing advanced animals and orc barbarians all day. Unless you get specific in-game information (i.e. "You'll be fighting in the Blood War"), there is no reason to presume SR, high AC, or anything else. Everything beyond that is metagaming, especially if your "statistics" are based on the percentage of creatures in the Monster Manual that have SR, high AC, ect. You are saying, in an ordinary campaign, at high lvl, you don't face SR at all, right? Would we make a vote for this? I am quite sure most would agree with me. Hell, people wouldn't even show an interest in it, since it's too obvious & dull. I know men are tougher than women, though I cannot prove it statistically. Sure some women are stronger than some men. But that doesn't change the average. Please, by all means, describe what exactly an "ordinary campaign at high level" is supposed to consist of. So do you prepare surplus offensive spells rather than having necessary defensive spells? Quite the opposite: I prepare enough defensive spells in order to survive several Greater Dispels. I do not have room for more than one Assay Resistance, if even that, especially considering I favor spells that do not allow SR at all. Assay Resistance may help with the BBEG or whatever (as if I know when he/she/it is going to be showing up), but it certainly isn't being useful taking up a slot for the 3-5 fights beforehand. Meanwhile, the slot could have been 10d6 of force damage, 14d6 of fire damage, an extended Fly, ect. ect. Then what slot and level is free? You are pretending it's applicable only to AR. Again, everyone's limit is no one's limit. Sure, no slot is completely "free." But I find the more useful spells begin appearing at 4th level and up, which make them "less free," especially if they are not directly A) Keeping me alive, B) Killing my enemies. All the devils and most celestials have SR of more than 10+CR. Some other outsiders, constructs, undeads, titan, tarrasque, and NPC's, too. My mistake, those examples provided have SR 12+CR. Nothing Spell Penetration can't fix though... This is totally meaningless, unless you can show me the official 'Swift Assay Resistance' and new/standard version 'Assay Resistance'. What are you talking about? I'm saying that the mechanics of inherently swift spells, such as Swift Invisibility and Assay Resistance, are different than Quickened Invisibility (for example). You cannot compare them - it'd be like comparing Fireball with Flame Strike. Then tell me yours. A spell's power can only be judged when compared to another similar spell from the same level or a similar effect of a spell from a different level. A spell's ability to reliably kill stronger opponents is fairly irrelevant considering the innumerable circumstances involved - this is aside from the fact that killing opponents is only one thing spells can do. Then tell me how can it be fair to affect monsters and PC's different? It affects monsters and PCs the same. The fact that no core PC race or class (beyond monk) gets natural SR, or the ridiculous pricing scheme for SR items in the DMG, are not a problem of Assay Resistance but of other game mechanics. Of course if you can tell me how doubling spell success rate with a nosave swift action 4th lvl spell, is not overpowered. Okay: Assay Resistance takes a 4th level slot. It only works on a single, visible, enemy for a short duration. It takes up the swift action for the round (e.g. no other quickened spells) It does nothing on its own - no damage, no battlefield control, no change of game state. It makes it easier to bypass SR, but comparably so to some feats. SR is never the last line of defense for a monster, only the first. It cuts both ways, allowing NPCs to pull similar stunts. It's "power" completely depends on what spells are cast afterwards. The last point in particular is one of the biggest in my eyes. If the spell they cast afterwards isn't itself broken, then what does it matter that the party spellcaster expended a not insignificant portion of their magic ability to ensure it has the possibility to affect a monster? Losing a spell (and therefore your entire turn) to a failed SR check is one of the worst things that a spellcaster faces - at least the fighter types get multiple chances of success and have a sense of actually accomplishing something (limiting a monster's movement, in the very least) in a turn. "Okay, Fighter hit twice out of five for 35 damage. Wizard, you're up." "Alright, I move two squares to the left and cast Disintegrate! Rolled 14 for the touch attack." "Check SR." "Uh, 18." "Nope. Cleric, you're up." Powerful? Sure. Overpowered? No. Crystal Shard is only useful on a regular basis at low levels. Once you can spend 7+pp while manifeting a power, crystal shard quickly becomes sub-optimal and little more than a back up power to be used against golems and other creatures that are highly resistant to regualar magical/psionic attacks. Well, it is essentially a psionic Magic Missile (in terms that everyone usually gets it) that has the ability to scale all the way up as a "safe power." Not sure if someone is Mind Blanked? Not sure if they have a good Will save? Just cast a Maximized Split Crystal Shard for some good-ole dependable damage any warrior would be proud of.
Bopple 05-10-05, 07:35 AM	Oh? The only thing that's different is there isn't a "parent spell" to look at - this does not mean there are no built-in limitations at all. Indeed I have been listing several. So, what kind of limitation(similar to other swift spells) does it have? Not for that round, as Quickened spells are swift actions too. Further, you're not "saving higher level spells" as you stated earlier because there are not higher level equivalents for Assay Resistance. If you were talking about neither of those points, then you are the one who didn't get it and replied to something completely unrelated. *scratch* I never said there is a higher version of AR. I said you can save higher lvl slot or metamagic rod; 1. If AR were to be a standard action spell, it might have needed quickening. 2. As AR is a swift action spell, you don't have to cast other spells quickened. By the way, an invisible creature has total concealment per the Glossery. Glitterdust does not negate total concealment - it merely outlines invisible creature's location (i.e. square). Unless, of course, you're arguing that the invisible creature no longer gets a miss chance at all. And the -40 Hide check penalty? It takes a DC 40 Spot check to pinpoint an invisible creature's location if it moved in the last round, and DC 50 if it didn't. This doesn't let you "see" the creature enough to shoot off Targeted spells, just to know precisely which square he is in. So, if there is a semi-transparent creature with glowing spots, it is invisible, right? And I can make a figment creature like that, with image spells, right? Wow, now a free greater invisibility for figments! Of course, this also brings us back all the way to my original point about Glitterdust being a bad example: if you know where an invisible creature is good enough to hit it in a 10-ft. radius burst, you can hit it with a 30-ft. radius Fireball or similar Area magic. With Glitterdust, you can let your groupies see the invisible. And you don't have any guarrantee you can see it again after shooting fireball. There isn't a standard action Assay Resistance, so your point is moot. Again, you can save higher slot and rod for other spell. And, still there is a matter of sorcerer. Success rate of the SR check, nothing else. The end result is same. They are all campaign specific metagaming. You expect that the next batch of monsters you face will likely have SR and a high AC. Why? Is it based on any discernable quality of the game world, or is it based on the fact that your DM has been throwing SR and high AC creatures at you? For all you know, you'll be facing advanced animals and orc barbarians all day. Unless you get specific in-game information (i.e. "You'll be fighting in the Blood War"), there is no reason to presume SR, high AC, or anything else. Everything beyond that is metagaming, especially if your "statistics" are based on the percentage of creatures in the Monster Manual that have SR, high AC, ect. Utter nonsense. Then how in the world can you prepare specific spells? You don't know if the spell is needed or not. Hell, you don't know if you are going to use even DD spells today. Align Weapon? No. Spell Resistance? No. Globe of Invulnerability? No. Mind Blank? No. Invisibility? No. Teleport? No. Death spells? No. Fly? No. Energy Immunity? No. See Invisibility? No. True Seeing? No. Restoration? No. Heck. These and tons of others are all metagaming. Please, by all means, describe what exactly an "ordinary campaign at high level" is supposed to consist of. For example, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, other 3rd party, or homebrew common fantasy settings. Compared to those, Ravenloft, Planescape, Darksun are twisted/extreme/uncommon campaigns. Quite the opposite: I prepare enough defensive spells in order to survive several Greater Dispels. I do not have room for more than one Assay Resistance, if even that, especially considering I favor spells that do not allow SR at all. Assay Resistance may help with the BBEG or whatever (as if I know when he/she/it is going to be showing up), but it certainly isn't being useful taking up a slot for the 3-5 fights beforehand. Meanwhile, the slot could have been 10d6 of force damage, 14d6 of fire damage, an extended Fly, ect. ect. Yeah, there are many to prepare. Then why not just prepare AR and deal damage with spells of other levels? Or vice versa? It's more efficient/cost-effective/powerful/versatile to have 1 AR or 2, rather than having 1 or 2 more orbs(which does 35 avg damage only). Sure, no slot is completely "free." But I find the more useful spells begin appearing at 4th level and up, which make them "less free," especially if they are not directly A) Keeping me alive, B) Killing my enemies. Doubling success rate is not directly related killing enemies? Then spells imposing penalties or some other malignant effects are useless. My mistake, those examples provided have SR 12+CR. Nothing Spell Penetration can't fix though... Some of them have 13+CR. A few of them have 14+CR or more. And you don't face precise CR for encounter. You can face a bit easier ones, or a bit harder ones. Now you gonna take another feat - Greater Spell Penetration? Wow, you burn 3 feats to do what a 4th lvl spell can do. What are you talking about? I'm saying that the mechanics of inherently swift spells, such as Swift Invisibility and Assay Resistance, are different than Quickened Invisibility (for example). You cannot compare them - it'd be like comparing Fireball with Flame Strike. Then show me in detail, how AR is comparable to those crippled swift spells. A spell's power can only be judged when compared to another similar spell from the same level or a similar effect of a spell from a different level. A spell's ability to reliably kill stronger opponents is fairly irrelevant considering the innumerable circumstances involved - this is aside from the fact that killing opponents is only one thing spells can do. Spell Vulnerability(Lower Resistance) is the only spell that is similar to AR. And it's also a serious contender for overpoweredness. Then what are you going to compare it to? It affects monsters and PCs the same. The fact that no core PC race or class (beyond monk) gets natural SR, or the ridiculous pricing scheme for SR items in the DMG, are not a problem of Assay Resistance but of other game mechanics. So you are saying SR system and CR system were inherently wrong, and AR fixed it? Assay Resistance takes a 4th level slot. It's relatively low level to cast. It only works on a single, visible, enemy for a short duration. I am confused why you are so obsessed with this. Don't you know AR is a personal spell? And asking again, don't you use target spells which consist of half the total spell list? Furthermore, you need a mean to beat invisibility, regardless if you use area spells only or not. It takes up the swift action for the round (e.g. no other quickened spells) LOL, if it took a standard action, then would you say "It takes up the standard action for the round"? Every single spell takes an action to cast. Actually, every combat move/maneuver in combat takes an action. That's one of the very basic nature of the whole system. And it has the best/quickest action type for casting - swift action. But you are treating it as if it were a weakness. It does nothing on its own - no damage, no battlefield control, no change of game state. Of course it changes the game state. Doubles the spell success rate. It may reduce combat rounds by a couple - it may prevent a death = save money & exp to raise/resurrect. It makes it easier to bypass SR, but comparably so to some feats. Yeah, if you burn 3 precious feats. SR is never the last line of defense for a monster, only the first. Yeah, there is the last resort - saves. Then you can cripple SR, because everyone has saves? It cuts both ways, allowing NPCs to pull similar stunts. *scratch* This has nothing to do with power level of the spell. It's "power" completely depends on what spells are cast afterwards. The purpose of AR; letting you cast powerful/various spells without risk of losing them(& round), effectively doubling the success rate. But that is the weakness of AR? *scratch* "Okay, Fighter hit twice out of five for 35 damage. Wizard, you're up." "Alright, I move two squares to the left and cast Disintegrate! Rolled 14 for the touch attack." "Check SR." "Uh, 18." "Nope. Cleric, you're up." Powerful? Sure. Overpowered? No. Statistically, you lose half your spells during the combat. As I said above, that can leads to 2 or more rounds to finish. Against weak foes, spending a couple of more rounds is nothing. But against tough ones, it may mean a death -> exp & money.
redraven 05-10-05, 10:09 PM	So, what kind of limitation(similar to other swift spells) does it have? Limitations of other swift spells: Shortened duration (1 round for Swift Invisibility/Fly/ect., 1 round/level for Daggerspell Stance/Entangling Staff/Assay Resistance/ect., 1 minute/level for Aerial Alacrity/ect.). Only Personal-range spells (exception: Distract Assailant and Entangling Staff). Lose their advantage when not specifically memorized (i.e. no swift benefit while on scroll, in a potion, in a staff, ect). *scratch* I never said there is a higher version of AR. I said you can save higher lvl slot or metamagic rod; 1. If AR were to be a standard action spell, it might have needed quickening. 2. As AR is a swift action spell, you don't have to cast other spells quickened. 1. Unlikely, as it probably would have had a longer duration if the other swift spells are any indication. 2. You can't cast other spells quickened in the same round, even if you wanted to. So, if there is a semi-transparent creature with glowing spots, it is invisible, right? And I can make a figment creature like that, with image spells, right? Wow, now a free greater invisibility for figments! So you can sneak attack a Glitterdusted target no problem? They're covered in so many glowing motes that you can make out their vital areas and hit for extra damage? Remember the spell says "visibly outlining invisible creatures," and not "renders invisibility ineffective/moot/whatever." It mentions nothing about total concealment at all. But who knows? Perhaps I've been missing out on being able to cast Charm Person on creature outlines regardless of whether I can actually see the creature. With Glitterdust, you can let your groupies see the invisible. And you don't have any guarrantee you can see it again after shooting fireball. Or the 12 squares you Glitterdust doesn't contain the invisible creature and you wasted an action that could been spent either casting See Invisibility, True Seeing, or other sure-fire counters and/or blasting at least two times as many squares. Utter nonsense. Then how in the world can you prepare specific spells? You don't know if the spell is needed or not. Hell, you don't know if you are going to use even DD spells today. Align Weapon? No. Spell Resistance? No. Globe of Invulnerability? No. Mind Blank? No. Invisibility? No. Teleport? No. Death spells? No. Fly? No. Energy Immunity? No. See Invisibility? No. True Seeing? No. Restoration? No. Heck. These and tons of others are all metagaming. It's metagaming based on the intention and logic behind the spell choice (barring specific in-game information). Only 1 out of 10 monsters in the MM has SR, as someone mentioned in the "Is Magic Balanced" thread. If you decide to take the Spell Penetration line of feats because you know that your DM likes to throw SR-laden creatures at you, that's metagaming. If you take it because you're "statistically" going to face SR creatures, that's metagaming (and especially aggravating for DMs since it usually means the players have read through the MM cover-to-cover). If SR has foiled you in the past during critical moments, or your character's personality is such that he/she wants to take on a Balor or whatever, it's not metagaming. (These are just examples.) For example, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, other 3rd party, or homebrew common fantasy settings. Compared to those, Ravenloft, Planescape, Darksun are twisted/extreme/uncommon campaigns. No, no, no. You need to demonstrate how the "ordinary game" at high levels is supposed to encounter high-SR creatures at whatever frequency you pick. In other words, you are defining how D&D is supposed to be played by people you have never met and know nothing about. Even if you stick to Greyhawk or whatever, you still have to back up the claim that people will be running into SR creatures. Only 10% of the monsters in MM have it. What basis are you using? Random encounter charts? Not every campaign will encounter every monster in the MM. Further, I just realized how fallacious your "men are stronger than women" analogy is. For example: "I know you're wrong. I cannot prove it statistically, and you're sometimes right, but it doesn't change the average." Yeah, there are many to prepare. Then why not just prepare AR and deal damage with spells of other levels? Or vice versa? It's more efficient/cost-effective/powerful/versatile to have 1 AR or 2, rather than having 1 or 2 more orbs(which does 35 avg damage only). As I said, I favor defense, and every Assay Resistance is one less spell slot that neither increases defense, provides utility in of itself, nor directly harms the enemy. Doubling success rate is not directly related killing enemies? Then spells imposing penalties or some other malignant effects are useless. Again, it does not double the success rate of the spell overall by any stretch of the imagination. The spell can still fail if it misses the creature, if the creature is specifically immune (Spell Immunity, elemental Immunity, trait Immunity, ect), or if the creature successfully saves. Even on the spells that don't allow saves, such as the Power Words, they have their own built-in limitations (hit points, in this case). As I said, SR is the first line of defense against magic, not the last. Some of them have 13+CR. A few of them have 14+CR or more. And you don't face precise CR for encounter. You can face a bit easier ones, or a bit harder ones. Now you gonna take another feat - Greater Spell Penetration? Wow, you burn 3 feats to do what a 4th lvl spell can do. Examples being...? I'll give you one for free: Astral Deva. Now, what others ones have more than SR 12+CR? If you're regularlly facing creatures that are your CR 3+, you have some balance issues. Moreover, that 4th level spell is not going to let you automatically bypass SR level+14 all the time. There's a 15% chance of rolling less, in addition to the fact (as I've stated before) that you have to devote 4th level spell slots to "bypass" the SR of one visible creature for a minute or so. Assay Resistance is not going to let your sonic-substituted Fireball damage a group of demons. After all, if you're assuming encountering a single SR enemy, I am more than able to assume encountering three or four. Spell Vulnerability(Lower Resistance) is the only spell that is similar to AR. And it's also a serious contender for overpoweredness. Then what are you going to compare it to? I forgot to add that if a similar effect cannot be found, you can compare it to what you could do with another spell of that level. Assay Resistance versus 35 force damage or 37.5 sonic damage or 52.5 acid damage. So if Assay Resistance always allows you to deal more damage (or similar detriment, such as death) with a higher level spell, it would be overpowered. You have provided no examples, and even if you did, it wouldn't be a guarantee (as I showed above). So you are saying SR system and CR system were inherently wrong, and AR fixed it? I have no idea what logic you used to jump to that conclusion. You claimed that it affects PCs differently, with the only possible argument being that it affects them differently because PCs don't get SR. I'm saying that the fact that PCs don't get SR is a completely separate problem, unrelated to Assay Resistance. I am confused why you are so obsessed with this. Don't you know AR is a personal spell? And asking again, don't you use target spells which consist of half the total spell list? Furthermore, you need a mean to beat invisibility, regardless if you use area spells only or not. It's a personal range spell that is useless if you cannot see a target, and since it only works on one target, it may as well be an official Targeted spell. The only possible reason why they made it Personal instead of targeted was to bypass a save and/or Spell Turning and the like, which has to say something about the what the designers thought about its power level. Second, no, I usually do not use Targeted spells - I stick with Area, Touch, Effect, battlefield control (Black Tentacles, Freezing Fog, ect), and defensive/utility spells. Finally, sure, having a means to beat invisibility is nice, but it isn't completely necessary under the tactics I usually employ. Further, I keep bringing up the invisibility bit because if a NPC/monster becomes invisible after you cast Assay Resistance, you have to waste actions making it visible instead of using your +10 SR check bonus. LOL, if it took a standard action, then would you say "It takes up the standard action for the round"? Every single spell takes an action to cast. Actually, every combat move/maneuver in combat takes an action. That's one of the very basic nature of the whole system. And it has the best/quickest action type for casting - swift action. But you are treating it as if it were a weakness. It's a weakness because, as I've stated before, it doesn't do anything in of itself. If I cast any other quickened spell, I have a chance of either ending combat immediately (e.g. quickened attack spell), bringing up defenses immediately (e.g. quickened/swift defense magic), or using other class features/magic items that can do either one of those. Of course it changes the game state. Doubles the spell success rate. It may reduce combat rounds by a couple - it may prevent a death = save money & exp to raise/resurrect. It doesn't "double spell success rate" unless everything other than SR would work automatically (no attack roll, no save, no hit point caps, ect). Your second point is irrelevant since that applies to any quickened offensive spells you could cast. Yeah, if you burn 3 precious feats. It's a matter of opinion, as I consider 4th level spell slots and up precious. Yeah, there is the last resort - saves. Then you can cripple SR, because everyone has saves? This is perhaps the most important point I can make in this discussion: if SR was the only thing balancing a particular spell before Assay Resistance, the spell wasn't balanced to begin with. This logic doesn't carry over to saves or AC, because all creatures have saves and ACs (even if they are low, they still have them). Not all creatures have SR. For example, you cast Assay Resistance and then Otto's Irresistible Dance against a Solar. Was Assay Resistance's effect in this combination powerful? Certainly. Was it overpowered? Not unless Otto's Irresistible Dance itself was overpowered. Why? Because you could have cast Otto's Irresistible Dance against a CR 21 Fighter type without SR and would not have called it overpowered then. You could of even breached the Solar's SR via other means, or even just luck. If the only thing preventing a spell from being overpowered was a quality that not even 90% of creatures have, then we can say that the spell was overpowered to begin with. The purpose of AR; letting you cast powerful/various spells without risk of losing them(& round), effectively doubling the success rate. But that is the weakness of AR? *scratch* The point is that if the circumstances change, the spell and all the investment that gone into it was wasted. In a best case scenario, you cast Assay Resistance followed by some attack spell and the combat ends because of it. What does that say about the spell you just cast? Likely, that it was too powerful to begin with and Assay Resistance only demonstrated it. But another scenario is that you cast Assay Resistance and an offensive spell, but combat doesn't end. The creature goes invisible, hides, teleports out of sight, casts dispel magic at you, you have to heal (if you're the cleric), or something else. You spend additional rounds on magic other than offensive spells and then the benefit of Assay Resistance beyond the opening salvo (assuming you had nothing better to do with a swift action) was zero. Assay Resistance is a helper spell that basically increases the cost of every other spell you cast in the round. Maybe you milk it for all its worth, maybe you should have prepared Dimension Door. The point is that you can never just cast Assay Resistance and get a benefit, which is the same limitation other helper spells have - they don't do anything by themselves. Statistically, you lose half your spells during the combat. As I said above, that can leads to 2 or more rounds to finish. Against weak foes, spending a couple of more rounds is nothing. But against tough ones, it may mean a death -> exp & money. Half your spells that grant SR against 10% of monsters at your CR assuming zero preparations (CL boosting items, feats, ect), sure. Moreover, Assay Resistance doesn't end fights, the spell you cast after it does - which if the spell ends fights automatically by itself and SR was the only unknown factor, it probably wasn't balanced to begin with, as I've said above.
Bopple 05-11-05, 12:29 AM	Limitations of other swift spells: Shortened duration (1 round for Swift Invisibility/Fly/ect., 1 round/level for Daggerspell Stance/Entangling Staff/Assay Resistance/ect., 1 minute/level for Aerial Alacrity/ect.). Huh? I asked which limitations AR has. Only Personal-range spells (exception: Distract Assailant and Entangling Staff). You are doing it again. Making a nature or a simple fact into a weakness. Most swift spells are personal range spells. SO WHAT? Lose their advantage when not specifically memorized (i.e. no swift benefit while on scroll, in a potion, in a staff, ect). So, this make swift action weaker than standard action? Unlikely, as it probably would have had a longer duration if the other swift spells are any indication. No, if it were the standard 'Swift Assay Resistance', it should have had duration of 1 round. 2. You can't cast other spells quickened in the same round, even if you wanted to. I said, you can prepare other spells at their normal level, or save metamagic rod charge. So you can sneak attack a Glitterdusted target no problem? They're covered in so many glowing motes that you can make out their vital areas and hit for extra damage? Remember the spell says "visibly outlining invisible creatures," and not "renders invisibility ineffective/moot/whatever." It mentions nothing about total concealment at all. But who knows? Perhaps I've been missing out on being able to cast Charm Person on creature outlines regardless of whether I can actually see the creature. Ahh, then if I wear a big hooded robe, I can laugh at/ignore sneak attacks, since rogues cannot 'see' my vital areas, anyway. Or the 12 squares you Glitterdust doesn't contain the invisible creature and you wasted an action that could been spent either casting See Invisibility, True Seeing, or other sure-fire counters and/or blasting at least two times as many squares. *scratch* If you don't know where it is, why on earth would you cast Glitterdust blindly? You'd cast See Invisibility first, then cast Glitterdust to let groupies see it. Let's use common sense, please. It's metagaming based on the intention and logic behind the spell choice (barring specific in-game information). Only 1 out of 10 monsters in the MM has SR, as someone mentioned in the "Is Magic Balanced" thread. 1 out of 10? Are you saying that's all the same regardless of CR? If you decide to take the Spell Penetration line of feats because you know that your DM likes to throw SR-laden creatures at you, that's metagaming. What on earth does it have to do with expecting powerful monsters to be hard to hit(AC)or to land a spell(SR)? If you take it because you're "statistically" going to face SR creatures, that's metagaming (and especially aggravating for DMs since it usually means the players have read through the MM cover-to-cover). If SR has foiled you in the past during critical moments, or your character's personality is such that he/she wants to take on a Balor or whatever, it's not metagaming. (These are just examples.) LOL. Then, high level characters cannot expect high SR & AC from high CR monsters? And what can you tell me about the spells? If it's a metagaming, almost everything in the system is metagaming. No, no, no. You need to demonstrate how the "ordinary game" at high levels is supposed to encounter high-SR creatures at whatever frequency you pick. In other words, you are defining how D&D is supposed to be played by people you have never met and know nothing about. Even if you stick to Greyhawk or whatever, you still have to back up the claim that people will be running into SR creatures. Only 10% of the monsters in MM have it. What basis are you using? Random encounter charts? Not every campaign will encounter every monster in the MM. As above, tell me what's the ratio when CR increases. Last time I checked, more than half of CR11+ monsters had SR. Further, I just realized how fallacious your "men are stronger than women" analogy is. For example: "I know you're wrong. I cannot prove it statistically, and you're sometimes right, but it doesn't change the average." Yeah, it's not at all a deduction. But it's empirical. I know it's right. And you know, too. As I said, I favor defense, and every Assay Resistance is one less spell slot that neither increases defense, provides utility in of itself, nor directly harms the enemy. LOL, it's a 4th category, facilitates the combat efficiency against the strong, very, very much. Again, it does not double the success rate of the spell overall by any stretch of the imagination. The spell can still fail if it misses the creature, if the creature is specifically immune (Spell Immunity, elemental Immunity, trait Immunity, ect), or if the creature successfully saves. Even on the spells that don't allow saves, such as the Power Words, they have their own built-in limitations (hit points, in this case). As I said, SR is the first line of defense against magic, not the last. What are you talking about? The natural success rate has nothing to do with the doubling ability of AR. Examples being...? I'll give you one for free: Astral Deva. Now, what others ones have more than SR 12+CR? Trumpet Archon, Avoral, Ghaele, Formian, Nightcrawler/walker/wing, Leonal, Night Hag, Rakshasa, Xill. They are from SRD only. If you check MM, there are more, like Mind Flayer. If you're regularlly facing creatures that are your CR 3+, you have some balance issues. Moreover, that 4th level spell is not going to let you automatically bypass SR level+14 all the time. There's a 15% chance of rolling less, in addition to the fact (as I've stated before) that you have to devote 4th level spell slots to "bypass" the SR of one visible creature for a minute or so. Assay Resistance is not going to let your sonic-substituted Fireball damage a group of demons. After all, if you're assuming encountering a single SR enemy, I am more than able to assume encountering three or four. No, if you face SR+12 monster or NPC of 1 higher CR, even Arcane Mastery + Spell Penetration does nothing. I forgot to add that if a similar effect cannot be found, you can compare it to what you could do with another spell of that level. Assay Resistance versus 35 force damage or 37.5 sonic damage or 52.5 acid damage. So if Assay Resistance always allows you to deal more damage (or similar detriment, such as death) with a higher level spell, it would be overpowered. You have provided no examples, and even if you did, it wouldn't be a guarantee (as I showed above). You still don't get it. You can have 2 or 3 force orbs at max. And with energy orbs, it's even less, due to energy resistance/immunity. After that what you gonna do? Twiddling your thumb and cry? But with AR, you can select/throw spells from your whole repertoire. I don't have to specify any specific spell. Because that's one of the merit of AR. I have no idea what logic you used to jump to that conclusion. You claimed that it affects PCs differently, with the only possible argument being that it affects them differently because PCs don't get SR. I'm saying that the fact that PCs don't get SR is a completely separate problem, unrelated to Assay Resistance. Why is it a separate problem? As a system, CR, SR, PC vs monsters, and ect, all of them are connected. If you weigh on something, it inevitably affects the others. It's a personal range spell that is useless if you cannot see a target, and since it only works on one target, it may as well be an official Targeted spell. The only possible reason why they made it Personal instead of targeted was to bypass a save and/or Spell Turning and the like, which has to say something about the what the designers thought about its power level. Second, no, I usually do not use Targeted spells - I stick with Area, Touch, Effect, battlefield control (Black Tentacles, Freezing Fog, ect), and defensive/utility spells. Ahh, it's your personal strategy, then? Unless you claim avg mage players usually disregard the half the total list, like you. Finally, sure, having a means to beat invisibility is nice, but it isn't completely necessary under the tactics I usually employ. It's another case of irrelevant argument. First of all, you need to see invisible to shoot your fireball, anyway. Even if you were able to spot it once, you don't have any guarrantee you can do it again. And second of all, it's completely necessary if you are forced(not to hit groupies with area spells, or bypass SR) to use ray or target spell. Further, I keep bringing up the invisibility bit because if a NPC/monster becomes invisible after you cast Assay Resistance, you have to waste actions making it visible instead of using your +10 SR check bonus. Waste what? :confused: It's a weakness because, as I've stated before, it doesn't do anything in of itself. If I cast any other quickened spell, I have a chance of either ending combat immediately (e.g. quickened attack spell), bringing up defenses immediately (e.g. quickened/swift defense magic), or using other class features/magic items that can do either one of those. That has NOTHING to do with swift action nor standard action, let alone if that is right or wrong. It doesn't "double spell success rate" unless everything other than SR would work automatically (no attack roll, no save, no hit point caps, ect). Your second point is irrelevant since that applies to any quickened offensive spells you could cast. ...? Let's say a ray; the probability to hit with it is 50%. As a ray, it usually doesn't require a save; there is only SR. If you can penetrate SR half the times, its total success rate is 25%. Now, if you have AR, it's flat 50%. Let's say a target spell; as a target spell, you don't need attack roll, but SR and save. If it's 50% and 50%, respectively, then the success rate is 25%. If you cast AR, it's flat 50%. If you cast a power word spell on a monster with higher hp than required, then it does nothing; 0%. And AR doubles it; 0%. It's not AR's weakness. It's mage's foolishness to cast it prematurely. If you cast it on a monster with less hp than required, then it requires SR, and AR again doubles the rate. It's a matter of opinion, as I consider 4th level spell slots and up precious. WOW, WOW, WOW. That's a complete bs. Then in your campaign, I can have 2 feats for a 4th lvl slot? No, no, I don't want even that much. Can I have 1 feat for a 4th lvl slot? This is perhaps the most important point I can make in this discussion: if SR was the only thing balancing a particular spell before Assay Resistance, the spell wasn't balanced to begin with. This logic doesn't carry over to saves or AC, because all creatures have saves and ACs (even if they are low, they still have them). Not all creatures have SR. For example, you cast Assay Resistance and then Otto's Irresistible Dance against a Solar. Was Assay Resistance's effect in this combination powerful? Certainly. Was it overpowered? Not unless Otto's Irresistible Dance itself was overpowered. Why? Because you could have cast Otto's Irresistible Dance against a CR 21 Fighter type without SR and would not have called it overpowered then. You could of even breached the Solar's SR via other means, or even just luck. If the only thing preventing a spell from being overpowered was a quality that not even 90% of creatures have, then we can say that the spell was overpowered to begin with. No, it is balanced(though it's one of the best combat spells), because it requires melee touch and SR. At that level it's very dangerous to rush into melee. If you fail to penetrate SR, *SPLAT* Without that problem, you can just walk in and let him dance. It's that different. And fighter is a very poor example to compare. Is it a news that fighter is thoroughly weak against casters, if he is not with his party members? Finally, taking an example of a very powerful spell, is not a good way to devalue AR. The point is that if the circumstances change, the spell and all the investment that gone into it was wasted. In a best case scenario, you cast Assay Resistance followed by some attack spell and the combat ends because of it. What does that say about the spell you just cast? Likely, that it was too powerful to begin with and Assay Resistance only demonstrated it. But another scenario is that you cast Assay Resistance and an offensive spell, but combat doesn't end. The creature goes invisible, hides, teleports out of sight, casts dispel magic at you, you have to heal (if you're the cleric), or something else. You spend additional rounds on magic other than offensive spells and then the benefit of Assay Resistance beyond the opening salvo (assuming you had nothing better to do with a swift action) was zero. LOL, then if you throw 2 spells and fail 1 of them, you don't suffer the same? Actually more problem. Since you don't have any guarrantee you won't miss again. Assay Resistance is a helper spell that basically increases the cost of every other spell you cast in the round. Maybe you milk it for all its worth, maybe you should have prepared Dimension Door. The point is that you can never just cast Assay Resistance and get a benefit, which is the same limitation other helper spells have - they don't do anything by themselves. It's still much better than losing a spell and a round. Unless another force orb's 35 more damage is better than various spells you can cast after AR. Half your spells that grant SR against 10% of monsters at your CR assuming zero preparations (CL boosting items, feats, ect), sure. Half. Moreover, Assay Resistance doesn't end fights, the spell you cast after it does - which if the spell ends fights automatically by itself and SR was the only unknown factor, it probably wasn't balanced to begin with, as I've said above. You denied it, but again you are saying the whole system is wrong but AR fixed it.
Dungeon Master 05-11-05, 12:19 PM	The way I'd handle this spell is make it into two spells: lesser assay resistance (+5 bonus), and greater assay resistance (+10) bonus. The former would be a 3rd level spell, the latter a 5th or 6th level spell.
Stormwalkr 05-11-05, 12:43 PM	It's a personal range spell that is useless if you cannot see a target, and since it only works on one target, it may as well be an official Targeted spell. The only possible reason why they made it Personal instead of targeted was to bypass a save and/or Spell Turning and the like, which has to say something about the what the designers thought about its power level. Thamks that's what was throwing me off. Makes sence now. BTW, how is this broken and not align weapon which allows multiple attacks to overcome an alignment based DR. Most of the creatures which have the high SP have an alignment based DR, so I really don't see it. Not to pour gas on the fire but...
Bopple 05-11-05, 03:58 PM	Why Align Weapon is not overpowered? 1. Handling It's inconvenient to cast, because you have to touch the weapon. [AR is a personal spell, though you have to see the foe. if the foe is invisible, then you need a mean to see it, anyway] 2. Substitution It's not too hard to get an aligned weapon - Blessed, Sure Striking, and Holy/Unholy(and these are very popular abilities, depending on the character's alignment). And these doesn't consumes a combat round nor require you to gather together to touch the weapon. You have to pay the price. But nothing is free, anyway. [redraven insisted 2-3 feats can beat AR, but that's very inefficient in normal campaigns. though it's a viable option in a campaign like Planescape] 3. Usage 1 At low levels, you cannot use it readily, because it's hard to justify for low lvl characters to know specific alignment DR of the monsters. Combined with #1, it is very annoying. And as you gain lvls, you would face monsters with alignment DR, and gain enough knowledge to know about alignemt DR. But now, people tend to make it sure to have aligned weapons. Because it's a pain in the ass to cast the spell. After then, it's only used to beat lawful/chaotic DR. And we know that doesn't occur frequently.(and at high lvl, clerics don't bother to cast it, because casting spells like Holy Word, Miracle, Harm, Mass Heal, or ect is much more efficient. except against a rare monster with very high lawful/chaotic DR) [AR doesn't become less useful at higher lvl] 5. Usage 2 Usually it goes to the party's main fighter. Since fighter is arguably one of the weakest class, people don't regard helping him to do his full damage, as overpowered. [AR helps the casters themselves - who are arguably the strongest] 6. Systemic Impact It was implemented with all the others. It doesn't shake the whole system. [AR shakes the whole SR/CR system]
redraven 05-11-05, 09:26 PM	Huh? I asked which limitations AR has. No, you asked what limitations it had similar to other swift spells. Even if you meant just the limitations of Assay Resistance, I have already answered that twice (and you even replied to it). You are doing it again. Making a nature or a simple fact into a weakness. Most swift spells are personal range spells. SO WHAT? The fact that most swift spells are personal range only is a limitation. Other classifications are possible, and yet all but two are Personal range. Further, your logic here is flawed. The only time it wouldn't be a limitation is when nothing else could do something either. For example, the fact that humans don't have gills is a limitation/weakness. You can argue exactly how much of a limitation/weakness that really is, but you cannot argue whether the limitation/weakness exists. After all, there are plenty of situations in which having gills would be beneficial. But if nothing else had gills, it wouldn't be a limitation because it would then be considered an impossibility. So, this make swift action weaker than standard action? You asked for limitations, and I gave one. No, if it were the standard 'Swift Assay Resistance', it should have had duration of 1 round. What are you talking about? Assay Resistance is already a swift spell - there is no reason to make a swifter version thereof. Moreover, the swift mechanic of spells are based on either an emulation of class abilities (i.e. Arrow Mind) or they are lower-level versions of higher level spells. Thus, the imaginary standard-action casting of Greater Assay Resistance (or whatever) would likely have a duration counted in minutes if not higher. That was my point, but you seem to be talking about something else that has no precedent in the rules at all (a swift version of an already swift spell). I said, you can prepare other spells at their normal level, or save metamagic rod charge. Okay. It still means you get no other Quickened spells for that round, which was my point. Ahh, then if I wear a big hooded robe, I can laugh at/ignore sneak attacks, since rogues cannot 'see' my vital areas, anyway. Unless your big hooded robe grants you concealment, it is irrelevant to my point. Glitterdust mentions nothing about removal of total concealment or even normal concealment. It does not even deny Glitterdusted creatures invisible attack bonuses. If it said "it removes all benefits of the invisible condition for the duration" this wouldn't be debated. But it doesn't say that. *scratch* If you don't know where it is, why on earth would you cast Glitterdust blindly? You'd cast See Invisibility first, then cast Glitterdust to let groupies see it. Let's use common sense, please. You are claiming I'm not following common sense? What exactly was the invisible monster/NPC you are in combat with doing for the two rounds you took to cast those spells? Common sense would seem to indicate the party knows the general location of the invisible creature by virtue of it attacking them for two rounds. Meanwhile, your "common sense" indicates that it is better to Glitterdust a creature you can see instead of, I don't know, simply killing it with magic or casting something relevant such as a targeted Dispel Magic (or Greater version thereof). 1 out of 10? Are you saying that's all the same regardless of CR? I don't know, did I? Maybe you should check again. What on earth does it have to do with expecting powerful monsters to be hard to hit(AC)or to land a spell(SR)? Metagaming is about judgments you make not based on in-game knowledge. If you expect powerful monsters to have high ACs and SR because it is statistically likely based on your reading of the MM, you are metagaming. Not all powerful monsters have high AC and SR. You can certainly come to the same conclusions via other means, but in this specific case, you would be considered metagaming. LOL. Then, high level characters cannot expect high SR & AC from high CR monsters? And what can you tell me about the spells? If it's a metagaming, almost everything in the system is metagaming. I am glad you find this discussion amusing, as you said elsewhere that it annoyed you. In any case, see above. As above, tell me what's the ratio when CR increases. Last time I checked, more than half of CR11+ monsters had SR. Actually, since you are the one making the point, the onus is on you to prove "more than half of CR 11+ monsters have SR." Moreover, you have to take into account that all of the CR 10 and less monsters can be advanced and/or templated and/or used in groups to reach higher CRs. LOL, it's a 4th category, facilitates the combat efficiency against the strong, very, very much. There is no such category as this is my system of measurement. "LOL." What are you talking about? The natural success rate has nothing to do with the doubling ability of AR You specifically said it "doubles the success rate," which I addressed. Trumpet Archon, Avoral, Ghaele, Formian, Nightcrawler/walker/wing, Leonal, Night Hag, Rakshasa, Xill. They are from SRD only. If you check MM, there are more, like Mind Flayer. Neat, four out of eleven are Good outsiders, which players fight all the time. Now, since statistics are apparently critical, what are the odds you'll face these seven non-Good outsider creatures? No, if you face SR+12 monster or NPC of 1 higher CR, even Arcane Mastery + Spell Penetration does nothing. Did you read what you quoted at all? I was talking about facing a group of SR creatures, who are not all going to be one CR higher than you unless your DM is having you face a CR your level+5. A group of four demons (or four whatever) is going to be a CR equal to the individual creature +4 if you follow the general CR doubling rule. You still don't get it. You can have 2 or 3 force orbs at max. And with energy orbs, it's even less, due to energy resistance/immunity. After that what you gonna do? Twiddling your thumb and cry? But with AR, you can select/throw spells from your whole repertoire. I don't have to specify any specific spell. Because that's one of the merit of AR. Obviously you haven't been paying attention, as I have clearly stated that I prepare non-SR combat spells, which makes your weak attempt at a personal attack moot. Why is it a separate problem? As a system, CR, SR, PC vs monsters, and ect, all of them are connected. If you weigh on something, it inevitably affects the others. It is separate because it has nothing to do with Assay Resistance, which works the exact same regardless of who uses it. The SR pricing scheme for items is an issue with the magic item system, the availability of the spell Spell Resistance is a balance problem between arcane/divine casters, and so on. Even if you insist of tenuously stringing them all long a common thread, the best you could do is the question of "why is SR so expensive and inefficient for PCs?" Regardless of that answer, it does not change the fact that Assay Resistance functions the exact same way each time you cast it. Ahh, it's your personal strategy, then? Unless you claim avg mage players usually disregard the half the total list, like you. Did you just now figure that out, despite it being the exact question you asked me? It's another case of irrelevant argument. First of all, you need to see invisible to shoot your fireball, anyway. Even if you were able to spot it once, you don't have any guarrantee you can do it again. And second of all, it's completely necessary if you are forced(not to hit groupies with area spells, or bypass SR) to use ray or target spell. Typically, invisible creatures which have engaged my party in combat attack us, which makes hitting their location with a 30-foot radius spread exceedingly easy. Further, I'd actually be more inclined to hit them with a Dispel Magic or similar considering they are most likely under the effects of Greater Invisibility. Waste what? you have to waste actions making it visible That has NOTHING to do with swift action nor standard action, let alone if that is right or wrong. Oh? It doesn't? Not at all? Care to elaborate? ...? Let's say a ray; the probability to hit with it is 50%. As a ray, it usually doesn't require a save; there is only SR. If you can penetrate SR half the times, its total success rate is 25%. Now, if you have AR, it's flat 50%. Let's say a target spell; as a target spell, you don't need attack roll, but SR and save. If it's 50% and 50%, respectively, then the success rate is 25%. If you cast AR, it's flat 50%. If you cast a power word spell on a monster with higher hp than required, then it does nothing; 0%. And AR doubles it; 0%. It's not AR's weakness. It's mage's foolishness to cast it prematurely. If you cast it on a monster with less hp than required, then it requires SR, and AR again doubles the rate. So circumstantial as to be irrelevant. If you do reduce everything down to be automatic, yes, it "doubles it success" as I've already said. But if you encounter a single scenario in which you have a 55% chance of penetrating SR or the creature has immunity/resistances/protections to the spell in question then your doubling argument fails. WOW, WOW, WOW. That's a complete bs. Then in your campaign, I can have 2 feats for a 4th lvl slot? No, no, I don't want even that much. Can I have 1 feat for a 4th lvl slot? If you behave like you are in this forum as you do in real life, I wouldn't even let you on my lawn, much less my campaign. Further, my opinion is "bs?" Are you going to back up that claim, or am I simply to conclude it was your own "bs" opinion? No, it is balanced(though it's one of the best combat spells), because it requires melee touch and SR. At that level it's very dangerous to rush into melee. If you fail to penetrate SR, *SPLAT* Without that problem, you can just walk in and let him dance. It's that different. And fighter is a very poor example to compare. Is it a news that fighter is thoroughly weak against casters, if he is not with his party members? Finally, taking an example of a very powerful spell, is not a good way to devalue AR. If Otto's Irresistible Dance is not overpowered when you don't have to worry about SR, then your beef with Assay Resistance is moot on all levels. If you admit that Otto's Dance is only balanced by its SR check then you admit that the spell itself is broken (as not all creatures have SR). If you admit the opposite, that the SR check doesn't matter, then claiming Assay Resistance is overpowered is illogical. If you admit that an SR check is somewhere inbetween, then you admit that part of a spell's balance is based on its opportunity cost (that is, part of the balance of Otto's Dance is that it takes up a 8th level slot and may fail). What conclusion follows from that last admission is that as long as a potentially broken spell has a high cost, then it is balanced. Well, casting Otto's Dance with a +10 bonus on the SR check costs both an 8th level slot and a 4th level slot at the very least. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. That it lasts 1 round/level is the only thing that makes it border the overpowered line, but it has limitations of its own that I feel justify a mere "powerful" label. LOL, then if you throw 2 spells and fail 1 of them, you don't suffer the same? Actually more problem. Since you don't have any guarrantee you won't miss again. Your chance of failing SR with a non-SR spell is zero so, no, you don't suffer the same. It's still much better than losing a spell and a round. Unless another force orb's 35 more damage is better than various spells you can cast after AR. Again, unless you cast non-SR spells. As an aside, I usually maximize the force orb, so it's dealing 60 damage (or 90 of some element). - enough to kill a wide range of creatures in a single hit, or at least put them in the 35 range for the standard action force orb which then usually follows. You denied it, but again you are saying the whole system is wrong but AR fixed it. What did Assay Resistance fix? Where did I remotely come close to saying anything resembling that statement anywhere, ever? Rather the point I am making, which you repeatedly missed, is that SR should not be considered a balancing factor for spells for the sole reason that not everything has SR. If I came up with a 5th level spell called "Bopple's Gruesome Death" which killed the target immediately and had no save and no attack roll, but did allow an SR check at a -100 penalty, would it be balanced? Never at any level would such a spell be balanced, because that -100 penalty is meaningless against a creature without SR. If SR is thus only one of many balancing factors, then it is perfectly acceptable to state that it can be removed as long as the removal necessitated something of comparable value being given up in exchange. This is the principle that allows Spectral Hand, Limited Wish (used to give a -7 to a save), and other such helper spells to exist despite them "breaking" the mechanics of the game.
Yunkel 05-11-05, 10:43 PM	a quick question. If a want to hea/buff my ally monk (with Diamond soul) does he has to lower his SR (a standar action (omg!))in order to receive the heal/buff spell?
Bopple 05-12-05, 12:13 AM	No, you asked what limitations it had similar to other swift spells. Even if you meant just the limitations of Assay Resistance, I have already answered that twice (and you even replied to it). No. Your so-called 'limitations' of AR as a swift is invalid. Because they are 'limitations' of spells or other swift spells. You haven't shown me any real limitation AR has, compared to other standard spells. The fact that most swift spells are personal range only is a limitation. Other classifications are possible, and yet all but two are Personal range. Further, your logic here is flawed. The only time it wouldn't be a limitation is when nothing else could do something either. For example, the fact that humans don't have gills is a limitation/weakness. You can argue exactly how much of a limitation/weakness that really is, but you cannot argue whether the limitation/weakness exists. After all, there are plenty of situations in which having gills would be beneficial. But if nothing else had gills, it wouldn't be a limitation because it would then be considered an impossibility. I am appalled at your sophistry. You don't make any single bit of sense with that. You are comparing things totally irrelevant to each other. Let's say; Human is vulnerable to carbon monoxide. But plants aren't. Yeah, human is more limited than plant, in that regard. So will you make a plant a fireman? You asked for limitations, and I gave one. No, you gave me nothing. You only gave me some weird example of sophistry; natural property of a kind = weakness of one of them. What are you talking about? Assay Resistance is already a swift spell - there is no reason to make a swifter version thereof. Moreover, the swift mechanic of spells are based on either an emulation of class abilities (i.e. Arrow Mind) or they are lower-level versions of higher level spells. Thus, the imaginary standard-action casting of Greater Assay Resistance (or whatever) would likely have a duration counted in minutes if not higher. That was my point, but you seem to be talking about something else that has no precedent in the rules at all (a swift version of an already swift spell). No.You are the one who argue over an impossible/pointless imaginary. If you make a 1min/lvl Greater AR, it means NOTHING. If it were to add +20 bonus to SR, still it means NOTHING. None ever will use it. Because AR alone is good enough, and more. AR is fully operational, as a whole good spell, unlike those crippled swift spells. Okay. It still means you get no other Quickened spells for that round, which was my point. I have never denied that. Everyone knows that. The point is, saving a higher slot and metamagic rod for other spells, is A merit. And being a swift action is also a merit, compared to normal situation - standard action. Unless your big hooded robe grants you concealment, it is irrelevant to my point. Glitterdust mentions nothing about removal of total concealment or even normal concealment. It does not even deny Glitterdusted creatures invisible attack bonuses. If it said "it removes all benefits of the invisible condition for the duration" this wouldn't be debated. But it doesn't say that. I know most would agree with me on Glitterdust. But let's say your version is right here. Is it still impossible to have figment with invisibility like that? You are claiming I'm not following common sense? What exactly was the invisible monster/NPC you are in combat with doing for the two rounds you took to cast those spells? Common sense would seem to indicate the party knows the general location of the invisible creature by virtue of it attacking them for two rounds. Meanwhile, your "common sense" indicates that it is better to Glitterdust a creature you can see instead of, I don't know, simply killing it with magic or casting something relevant such as a targeted Dispel Magic (or Greater version thereof). If Glitterdust can beat invisibility(on which most would agree with me), the whole party can spank it easily. Or are you saying 1 caster is better than the whole party? And please tell me about the guarrantee to see after the first attack? I don't know, did I? Maybe you should check again. Can't you even answer a simple question? 1 out of 10, same all over the CR? Metagaming is about judgments you make not based on in-game knowledge. If you expect powerful monsters to have high ACs and SR because it is statistically likely based on your reading of the MM, you are metagaming. Not all powerful monsters have high AC and SR. You can certainly come to the same conclusions via other means, but in this specific case, you would be considered metagaming. That makes no difference, because there ARE in-game reasons to expect high AC and SR. Most spells and weapon/armor properties incur overlapping metagaming/in-game reasons to take them. I am glad you find this discussion amusing, as you said elsewhere that it annoyed you. In any case, see above. It's called sarcasm, actually. ;) And you are evading my question. Actually, since you are the one making the point, the onus is on you to prove "more than half of CR 11+ monsters have SR." Moreover, you have to take into account that all of the CR 10 and less monsters can be advanced and/or templated and/or used in groups to reach higher CRs. Yeah, there is that. But then again, template can give SR to those who didn't have SR. And furthermore, you are taking it for granted for mages to take Arcane Mastery, which is strong against the weak, but zero against the strong(it can't even dispel the same CL or beat SR of CR-1~CR+1). Is that feat that popular? And of course you first tell me if you would give me a feat over a 4th lvl slot. There is no such category as this is my system of measurement. "LOL." Yeah, you seem to be a bit incompetent at categorizing. Neat, four out of eleven are Good outsiders, which players fight all the time. Now, since statistics are apparently critical, what are the odds you'll face these seven non-Good outsider creatures? Not much. But things like mind flayer, night hag, rakshasa are somewhat iconic monsters of D&D. Did you read what you quoted at all? I was talking about facing a group of SR creatures, who are not all going to be one CR higher than you unless your DM is having you face a CR your level+5. A group of four demons (or four whatever) is going to be a CR equal to the individual creature +4 if you follow the general CR doubling rule. Why 4 demons only? Why not 2 devils? And as I have said, AR is strong against BBEG. It is separate because it has nothing to do with Assay Resistance, which works the exact same regardless of who uses it. The SR pricing scheme for items is an issue with the magic item system, the availability of the spell Spell Resistance is a balance problem between arcane/divine casters, and so on. Even if you insist of tenuously stringing them all long a common thread, the best you could do is the question of "why is SR so expensive and inefficient for PCs?" Regardless of that answer, it does not change the fact that Assay Resistance functions the exact same way each time you cast it. Of course it doesn't work the exact same. Because monsters cannot use it. So are you saying SR system inherently favors monsters and it should be fixed, isn't it? And accidentally AR fixed it, right? Did you just now figure that out, despite it being the exact question you asked me? *scratch* I had never ever been interested in your personal strategy. I cannot. Can't we talk about more conventional strategy, rather than dropping the whole targetting spells? Typically, invisible creatures which have engaged my party in combat attack us, which makes hitting their location with a 30-foot radius spread exceedingly easy. If they attacked your party already, then area spells will also hit your party, since they are adjacent. Further, I'd actually be more inclined to hit them with a Dispel Magic or similar considering they are most likely under the effects of Greater Invisibility. Again, it will also dispel your party. 'Or similar'? What kind of spell is that? Most of all, have you ever used area dispel? There is NO guarrantee to dispel a specific spell. It's either you don't know anything about dispel, or you are arguing for the sake of arguing, again. you have to waste actions making it visible Again, it's not a weakness of AR. It's a nature/merit of invisibility. BTW, that's why people make See Invisibility permanent, or carry items for it, or True Seeing. Oh? It doesn't? Not at all? Care to elaborate? Huh. It's called irrelevance. If you take power as another factor, while we are talking about swift action vs standard action, then it's totally irrelevant. You have an interesting habit of not being able to see the obvious. So circumstantial as to be irrelevant. If you do reduce everything down to be automatic, yes, it "doubles it success" as I've already said. But if you encounter a single scenario in which you have a 55% chance of penetrating SR Ahh, that one. Yes, you are right. It's not 'double' for them. My bad. 1.5~2 then. or the creature has immunity/resistances/protections to the spell in question then your doubling argument fails. That has nothing to do with AR. That's the problem of the spell itself. And 0x2 = 0 sounds like a perfectly right math, to me. If you behave like you are in this forum as you do in real life, I wouldn't even let you on my lawn, much less my campaign. Further, my opinion is "bs?" Are you going to back up that claim, or am I simply to conclude it was your own "bs" opinion? No, don't evade the question. You know it doesn't have to be me. Let's say your favorite player. Would you trade 1 feat(let alone 2 or 3), for a 4th lvl slot? If Otto's Irresistible Dance is not overpowered when you don't have to worry about SR, then your beef with Assay Resistance is moot on all levels. If you admit that Otto's Dance is only balanced by its SR check then you admit that the spell itself is broken (as not all creatures have SR). If you admit the opposite, that the SR check doesn't matter, then claiming Assay Resistance is overpowered is illogical. If you admit that an SR check is somewhere inbetween, then you admit that part of a spell's balance is based on its opportunity cost (that is, part of the balance of Otto's Dance is that it takes up a 8th level slot and may fail). What conclusion follows from that last admission is that as long as a potentially broken spell has a high cost, then it is balanced. Well, casting Otto's Dance with a +10 bonus on the SR check costs both an 8th level slot and a 4th level slot at the very least. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. That it lasts 1 round/level is the only thing that makes it border the overpowered line, but it has limitations of its own that I feel justify a mere "powerful" label.. The spell is a very powerful and it has a couple of safty checks - SR, mind-affecting & AR. If you can easily remove one of them, yes, it becomes overpowered. Then what about similar powerful spells. If AR makes them overpowered again, then it's AR's problem, or their problem? It's AR, because they have been as they are, and SR system has been as it is. Your chance of failing SR with a non-SR spell is zero so, no, you don't suffer the same. Again, unless you cast non-SR spells. As an aside, I usually maximize the force orb, so it's dealing 60 damage (or 90 of some element). - enough to kill a wide range of creatures in a single hit, or at least put them in the 35 range for the standard action force orb which then usually follows. As I said before, orb spells are also shaking SR system. They are identical to AR in spirit. It's a poor example to devalue AR, unless you say SR/CR(since SR is also a factor for calculating CR) was inherently wrong, and orbs and AR fixed it. What did Assay Resistance fix? Where did I remotely come close to saying anything resembling that statement anywhere, ever? You are denying it. But you did. Rather the point I am making, which you repeatedly missed, is that SR should not be considered a balancing factor for spells for the sole reason that not everything has SR. If I came up with a 5th level spell called "Bopple's Gruesome Death" which killed the target immediately and had no save and no attack roll, but did allow an SR check at a -100 penalty, would it be balanced? Never at any level would such a spell be balanced, because that -100 penalty is meaningless against a creature without SR. If SR is thus only one of many balancing factors, then it is perfectly acceptable to state that it can be removed as long as the removal necessitated something of comparable value being given up in exchange. This is the principle that allows Spectral Hand, Limited Wish (used to give a -7 to a save), and other such helper spells to exist despite them "breaking" the mechanics of the game. First of all, there is no spell like that. Second of all, there have been spells like irresistible dance, already, based on SR system, if you like it or not. They were very powerful, but with AR they become overpowered. Is it a problem of core spell, or a new splat book spell which play outside and breakdown the pre-existing conventional SR/CR system?
smrtgmp 05-12-05, 12:30 AM	a quick question. If a want to hea/buff my ally monk (with Diamond soul) does he has to lower his SR (a standar action (omg!))in order to receive the heal/buff spell?If the spell you are trying to cast is subject to SR, then yes, he would have to lower it.
redraven 05-12-05, 04:35 AM	Bopple, if you cannot conduct an argument without resorting to continued personal attacks and similar breaches of the Code of Conduct, this discussion is over. I will respond to your latest claims under the presumption that you will cease the ad hominem, but if this presumption proves to be misplaced, you shall not hear back from me aside from perhaps a note that I have reported the thread for violations. No. Your so-called 'limitations' of AR as a swift is invalid. Because they are 'limitations' of spells or other swift spells. You haven't shown me any real limitation AR has, compared to other standard spells. So if limitations are shared among a few similar spells, they are not actually limitations at all? Then no spell has limitations. I am appalled at your sophistry. You don't make any single bit of sense with that. You are comparing things totally irrelevant to each other. Let's say; Human is vulnerable to carbon monoxide. But plants aren't. Yeah, human is more limited than plant, in that regard. So will you make a plant a fireman? I am appalled at the amount of personal attacks in this thread. To answer your question, if plants were capable of being firemen and had no significant limitations of their own there would be no reason not to make them firemen. They are not capable of being firemen however, so the analogy is moot. The better analogy would compare two creatures (spells, ect) that can do the same or similar thing. Both a human and a fish can swim underwater. The human, however, is limited in its reliance on air and its inefficient method of moving through the water. If you wish to keep the analogies in the same species, that's fine - compare the average person's ability to work in a factory versus a person who just suffered a stroke. The person with the stroke has an obvious limitation, with the specifics depending on the nature of the stroke. No, you gave me nothing. You only gave me some weird example of sophistry; natural property of a kind = weakness of one of them. It is not a "natural property" when not all of them share the property. No.You are the one who argue over an impossible/pointless imaginary. If you make a 1min/lvl Greater AR, it means NOTHING. If it were to add +20 bonus to SR, still it means NOTHING. None ever will use it. Because AR alone is good enough, and more. AR is fully operational, as a whole good spell, unlike those crippled swift spells. Speaking of "natural properties" of swift spells, one thing they do share when they have a parent spell is that the swift spell has more limitations. You cannot cast Swift Invisibility on another creature for example. Thus, if you grant a Greater Assay Resistance you grant that it will be doing more than simply be longer lasting. It would most likely work on every creature you could see, instead of being limited to a single creature, for example. If you do not want to grant hypotheticals, that's fine, but it doesn't really change anything. As for your last comment, unless you back up that claim with why they are "crippled," I am going assume it was only your opinion and thus irrelevant to this point. I have never denied that. Everyone knows that. The point is, saving a higher slot and metamagic rod for other spells, is A merit. And being a swift action is also a merit, compared to normal situation - standard action. Assay Resistance's "normal situation" is always a swift action. If you do not want to speak of hypotheticals, then you cannot count the saving of a metamagic rod/higher level slot as a merit of Assay Resistance, as you cannot prepare it any other way. I know most would agree with me on Glitterdust. But let's say your version is right here. Is it still impossible to have figment with invisibility like that? The number of people who believe something to be true proves nothing - most of the civilized world thought the world was flat. As for figments, you cannot cast invisibility on a figment. You might be able to create a figment that seems to have invisibility cast on it if you somehow can create transparent figments, but it would not suddenly gain concealment because of the way it looks. If you could, you could also create blurred figments, blinking figments, displaced figments, or perhaps other spell effects such as blinding figments and the like to emulate the actual effects of higher level spells with a level 1 spell. A figment which shoots a Scorching Ray deals no damage when it hits a foe, nor would a "displaced" figment receive a 50% miss chance. If Glitterdust can beat invisibility(on which most would agree with me), the whole party can spank it easily. Or are you saying 1 caster is better than the whole party? And please tell me about the guarrantee to see after the first attack? Typically, the battle is over before the end of the second round with my party, regardless of the visibility of the target. Invisible creatures are generally invisible for a reason, and that reason usually involves the creature's inability to survive long in melee without a miss chance. The Fighter may have a 50% miss chance for their attacks (or usually lower if they take Blind-Fight), but even their iterative attacks have almost an automatic chance of success if they do happen to beat the concealment miss chance. So in melee, the Fighter has a 85% chance or so of hitting the invisible creature at least once out of three tries (or more depending on feat selection). That hit is going to hurt quite a bit, and there is at least another fighter-type to go. Then the cleric and I go, and simply blast the creature with Area spells. Is there a guarantee about seeing the creature after the first attack? If the first attack doesn't kill it outright, no. D&D combat is naturally risky though, and I would rather gamble (with all my defensive spells active, of course) then spend two spell slots and two whole rounds to "guarantee" a solution to a problem that has likely solved itself in the meantime. If I am out of Area spells or there are extenuating circumstances (bystanders, enclosed space, ect), sure, I'll cast Glitterdust for a lack of anything better to do. Can't you even answer a simple question? 1 out of 10, same all over the CR? No, I did not say that at all. Nor, coincidently, is it relevant. That makes no difference, because there ARE in-game reasons to expect high AC and SR. Most spells and weapon/armor properties incur overlapping metagaming/in-game reasons to take them. I never said there wasn't, nor did I deny overlaps. But just because those overlaps exist does not mean metagaming is nothing to worry about. It's called sarcasm, actually. And you are evading my question. It's called a breach of the CoC, actually. I evaded no question, as I answered it earlier on in the post, hence the "see above." Yeah, there is that. But then again, template can give SR to those who didn't have SR. And furthermore, you are taking it for granted for mages to take Arcane Mastery, which is strong against the weak, but zero against the strong(it can't even dispel the same CL or beat SR of CR-1~CR+1). Is that feat that popular? And of course you first tell me if you would give me a feat over a 4th lvl slot. Yes, but not all templates do, so your point is moot. As for Arcane Mastery, it is powerful for the same reason why you state Assay Resistance is overpowered: it decreases uncertainty. Moreover, the people who take Arcane Mastery are usually the same people who take the Spell Penetration feats (every person I've ever played with has taken at least one such feat) or buy items to boost CL. Assay Resistance is more of a "sure thing," but it has absolute limits (you can only cast so many in a day, only one creature at a time, and so on) whereas Arcane Mastery applies to every spell you ever cast against every enemy all the time. Yeah, you seem to be a bit incompetent at categorizing. A similar statement could be said about your ability to maintain a civilized argument. Not much. But things like mind flayer, night hag, rakshasa are somewhat iconic monsters of D&D. Irrelevant. Why 4 demons only? Why not 2 devils? And as I have said, AR is strong against BBEG. Why not Arcane Mastery and Spell Penetration? Or why not Arcane Mastery and anything that boosts CL by 1 point in the two devil case? Aside from that, BBEGs are obviously campaign specific and Assay Resistance could be equally useless against the BBEG (Invisible, teleports away, doesn't have SR, ect). Of course it doesn't work the exact same. Because monsters cannot use it. So are you saying SR system inherently favors monsters and it should be fixed, isn't it? And accidentally AR fixed it, right? Wait, monsters cannot use non-core spells simply because they weren't printed with them in the core books? If you only allow the PCs to take advantage of new spells that come out, you are artificially limiting your monsters. In the cases of monsters that have no spellcasting ability, the party spellcaster is still paying a opportunity cost in order to decrease/eliminate the uncertainty involved in a relatively minor portion of a creature's defenses. If I cast Assay Resistance, Limited Wish, and True Strike all before shooting a Disintegrate ray, this is balanced in spite of everything being almost automatic (+20 to hit, -7 to the Fort save, +10 to beat SR). As for your second issue, to repeat what I have said before, the SR system does not inherently favor monsters nor did Assay Resistance "fix" anything. I still have no idea what I have said previously that could possibly be construed as that. *scratch* I had never ever been interested in your personal strategy. I cannot. Can't we talk about more conventional strategy, rather than dropping the whole targetting spells? "Conventional strategy" as defined by whom? A broad survey of D&D players? Of people you know? You and I both have strategies that we consider "conventional" and could support either with empirical evidence and/or logic. Using Targeted spells is conventional simply because half (which I doubt) the spells are targeted? I say using Targeted spells is unconventional if you presume any defenses whatsoever (Spell Turning, ect). In the end, it is both of our opinions based on our personalized gaming environments over what is "conventional." If you disagree, by all means write up how a "conventional" D&D campaign is to be run, how NPCs are "conventionally" played, and what "conventional" tactics are employed. If they attacked your party already, then area spells will also hit your party, since they are adjacent. The beauty of Area spells is that you can aim them so as to not hit your party. Even if the enemy is in the midst of your party, you can still aim three-dimensionally, ready and action for when your party moves out of the way, take the Archmage prestige class/the Shape Spell feat, and so on. Even if it is somehow impossible to not hit your party, that is not a flaw in this particular argument since you wouldn't be able to cast Glitterdust without hitting (and possibly blinding) your other party members. Even worse, Glitterdust is a Will save, which the fighters are unlikely to make - at least with an Area Reflex save, they take some damage but are not taken out of the fight completely. Again, it will also dispel your party. 'Or similar'? What kind of spell is that? Most of all, have you ever used area dispel? There is NO guarrantee to dispel a specific spell. It's either you don't know anything about dispel, or you are arguing for the sake of arguing, again. Not if I actually aim the spell - see above. The "or similar" refers to the Dispelling Screen spells and anything else that removes magic from an area. Yes, I have used Dispel magic many a time, and I never said it will automatically dispel the invisibility. If the invisible creature has multiple spells of higher than 4th level active, then dispelling one of the stronger versions would be in my best interests anyway, even if it remains invisible. Again, it's not a weakness of AR. It's a nature/merit of invisibility. BTW, that's why people make See Invisibility permanent, or carry items for it, or True Seeing. It is a weakness of Assay Resistance if other spells don't need visibility to function. Your other point is irrelevant, as if you can see the creature benefiting from invisibility you can also hit it with a targeted Dispel Magic which can also remove any other spells that may be active. Or, simply blast it into oblivion with offensive spells or (if you prefer) Targeted spells. Huh. It's called irrelevance. If you take power as another factor, while we are talking about swift action vs standard action, then it's totally irrelevant. You have an interesting habit of not being able to see the obvious. We weren't just talking about swift and standard actions - the entire point was that you are incurring an opportunity cost in casting the spell. And any discussion of opportunity costs has to include a discussion about what else you could have done with that action. It is completely relevant. That has nothing to do with AR. That's the problem of the spell itself. It still counters your original claim. No, don't evade the question. You know it doesn't have to be me. Let's say your favorite player. Would you trade 1 feat(let alone 2 or 3), for a 4th lvl slot? The "question" is a fallacy called a red herring and/or a straw man, considering I said nothing at all resembling what your are painting me to have said. I will take Arcane Mastery and memorize a different 4th level spell over Assay Resistance, as I feel the former is far more advantageous for reasons I have outlined more than four times already. No amount of logic can pervert that sentiment into "I will give you a free feat for a 4th level spell." The spell is a very powerful and it has a couple of safty checks - SR, mind-affecting & AR. If you can easily remove one of them, yes, it becomes overpowered. Then what about similar powerful spells. If AR makes them overpowered again, then it's AR's problem, or their problem? It's AR, because they have been as they are, and SR system has been as it is. That is circular logic, as it presumes that these spells were not overpowered to begin with. By your own admission, Otto's Irresistible Dance is overpowered against creatures without SR or immunity to mind-affecting spells. How many creatures does this include? Well, 90% of the MM creatures don't have SR. How many creatures without SR happen to be immune to mind-affecting spells? I don't know, but how many would it take before it was recognized as overpowered? 50%? 25%? 5%? One creature? What about the PCs? Only one core class gets SR and none of them are immune to mind-affecting spells. Where is the balance in using Otto's Dance on the PCs? If the only way the spell becomes balanced is when the PCs have to buy protections against it, then it cannot be said to be very balanced to begin with. The only thing Assay Resistance has done was to highlight the naturally overpowering nature of the spell - the problem has been there all along. As I said before, orb spells are also shaking SR system. They are identical to AR in spirit. It's a poor example to devalue AR, unless you say SR/CR(since SR is also a factor for calculating CR) was inherently wrong, and orbs and AR fixed it. I don't think it was inherently wrong, but it was inherently flawed. In either case, the orbs and Assay Resistance did not fix the actual problem at all. They only highlighted it. You are denying it. But you did. That is compelling proof right there. First of all, there is no spell like that. Second of all, there have been spells like irresistible dance, already, based on SR system, if you like it or not. They were very powerful, but with AR they become overpowered. Is it a problem of core spell, or a new splat book spell which play outside and breakdown the conventional SR/CR system? Of course there is no spell like that. But there may as well be with how flawed the system is currently. Again, Assay Resistance did not fix the problem at all - merely highlighted it. The system remains flawed and in need of revision.
Bopple 05-12-05, 06:08 AM	I think it's time to quit. I am at a loss what to say more to your persistence on arguing a natural property of all = weakness of a specific spell, or weakness of other swift spells = weakness of AR, or swift action is limited, while it is still the best type of action. (most swift spells are personal only, so that is a limitation. Yes, AR is a personal spell. So what? Is there any need to cast it on noncasters? furthermore, divine & arcane both have AR, is there any reason mage should cast his precious AR on cleric, while the cleric can his AR?) Or, even with glitterdust, you cannot target foes. Or, not answering the matter of noticing the invisible again, after hit once. Or, how you can exempt party members when you shoot fireball blindly(3D? oh come on) Or, since you can dispel/guess invisibility, you don't need to see invisibility. Or, when I asked if a 4th lvl slot is worthy of 3 feats, you said; It's a matter of opinion, as I consider 4th level spell slots and up precious. and then; considering I said nothing at all resembling what your are painting me to have said Or keeping evading my question, referring to irrelevant answer as 'see above'. Or making other spell's weakness as AR's.(let's say in a campaign of no AR. you cast irresistible dance on a lich and fail, then what would you blame for it? The non-existent AR?) Or semantic games like wrong vs 'flawed', or fix vs 'highlight'. Goodbye, Sir. PS) BTW, my favorite line was; You asked "what other spell can defeat invisibility" and I answered you. I am not a woman, but a man. Who doesn't know that? Those who never heard of me. Huh? You asked. Oh, man.
redraven 05-13-05, 06:24 AM	I am at a loss what to say more to your persistence on arguing a natural property of all = weakness of a specific spell, or weakness of other swift spells = weakness of AR, If you had to describe the weaknesses of spells such as Scorching Ray, Fireball, Flame Strike, Firestorm, ect., how would you do so? Not weaknesses versus another spell even, just weaknesses in general. Would you not include that these spells deal fire damage? As in, dealing fire damage is not a weakness at all? Since we have been speaking about statistics, how many creatures in the MM have fire resistance? I have no actual statistics, but I am willing to bet that fire resistance (or immunity) is the most common special ability, ever. Based on the fact that sonic spells have been universally nerfed in any example I can think of - the most illuminating being Orb of Fire vs. Orb of Sound or the same general psionic trend to reduce sonic damage dice - I'd be inclined to say fire damage is a weakness compared to all other energy types, if not a weakness in of itself. The point in the above example is to demonstrate that, yes, a natural property of all can be a weakness of the individual. The converse doesn't even make sense considering the individual is by definition a member of the all. "One human weakness is that humans cannot breathe water. Timmy cannot breathe water, but it isn't a weakness of Timmy." Or for the mathematically inclined: "A = B, A = 1, B = 0." You can certainly argue against the notion that not breathing water is a weakness. Perhaps water breathing is irrelevant, or maybe human strengths outweigh their weaknesses. This doesn't change the fact that humans cannot breathe water - it just changes how we value that particular weakness. [...] or swift action is limited, while it is still the best type of action. Immediate action is arguably better than swift action, with free action being the best type overall. That counters your claim, but I will assume you meant "best type of spellcasting action" so as to make free action not apply. All other things being equal, immediate action is still better. In Assay Resistance's case, it doesn't really matter since an immediate action's benefit derives from being able to take advantage of a beneficial effect when it is not your turn, and you still have to wait for your turn to come around to get a benefit from Assay Resistance. If you meant swift action is the best compared to standard action, sure, if all other things are equal. All other things usually aren't equal (higher level slots/metamagic rods for Quickened spells, reduced effects for naturally swift spells). You think I am arguing for argument's sake, but that is not my intention at all. I spend a lot of time on other non-D&D boards where all claims not prefaced by "In my opinion" or similar are immediately followed by requests for proof. The point is to distinguish between an opinion and a claim of fact - the former cannot be proven, but the latter can. Maybe the D&D board's atmosphere is supposed to be more casual. A stroll through this particular forum (Magic & Spells) certainly does not seem to have that atmosphere. I see a lot of unsubstantiated claims that appear convincing, but do not hold up logically. If wanting non-opinion claims of fact to be proved (or at least logical) is your definition of arguing for argument's sake, then yes, I have been doing so. My definition of that phrase is, of course, different. most swift spells are personal only, so that is a limitation. Yes, AR is a personal spell. So what? Is there any need to cast it on noncasters? furthermore, divine & arcane both have AR, is there any reason mage should cast his precious AR on cleric, while the cleric can his AR?) What about the Bard? The Druid? The Wu Jen? The Hex Blade? The Ranger? Or any other base class that exists which has a spell list different from the Cleric and Sorcerer/Wizard? A standard-action, minutes-long version of Assay Resistance would surely be useful to those characters in the party if its range was "Target: Creature touched" or even better "Target: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart," even if it were higher level. Or, even with glitterdust, you cannot target foes. I made a seperate thread about this, as you know, but even if I agree that you can target affected things it doesn't change the fact that there are other (better, in my eyes) things to do than casting Glitterdust. Which was the reason I brought it up to begin with. Or, how you can exempt party members when you shoot fireball blindly(3D? oh come on) Let's say the 2D battlefield looks like this: X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X P O X X X X X X X X X X C X P X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X P X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X With X being empty squares, C being the spellcaster, P being party members, and O being the invisible opponent. How do you know O is right there? Well, if your party hasn't already found the invisible creature's square (by being attacked, successfully probing the area, successfully hitting on blind luck, with Spot checks, ect) then you can cast See Invisibility or whatever. Or you can fire blindly, which I shall address below. In any event, you can hit O with any Area spell you please, if you aim correctly. For example: X X X X Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X X X X C X P O X X X X X Z X X X X X X P X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X P X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X If you cast Fireball at any square labeled Z, you will still blast the square O is in without harming your party. Even if you are not sure if O is in that square, you will blanket the area around your party to the degree that it will likely take damage if it is anywhere close - in this case, you will know if O was in the area of effect by noticing whether or not the Reflex save was successful or not (by the rules, you are aware of whether creatures make a save or not regardless of if you actually are aware of them). If you can fire three-dimensionally, your options almost double: X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X X X X X C X P O X X X X X N X X X X With N being the normal square you were targeting two-dimensionally. Of course, astute RAW supporters will point out that you aim at grid intersections instead of squares. Unfortunately, I am unable to recreate the same simple pictures as above with grid intersection measurements. Regardless of this, the concept is the same in practice - you merely choose the correct grid intersection. Excuse my prior reluctance to spend 10 minutes spelling it out in this fashion when I thought such aiming tactics were obvious. Or, since you can dispel/guess invisibility, you don't need to see invisibility. Only two core creatures (out of 420+) I know are naturally invisible. If you blanket the area with dispel magic using similar tactics to the Fireball example, you have a chance of dispeling the invisibility in a best case scenario. Average case scenario: you dispel invisibility, dispel something else, or dispel nothing but find out that the creature is in that area. Worst case scenario: the creature is not in the area. Of course, Glitterdust has the same worst case scenario if you don't spend the action to cast See Invisibility. Considering that you'll generally know the invisible creature's square beforehand (see above for reasons why), the only benefit See Invisibility will get you is allow you to cast Targeted (or remove the miss chance for Effect spells) spells later on in the round. Maybe you consider that overwhelmingly better than the alternatives. Given the above circumstance, I don't. Or, when I asked if a 4th lvl slot is worthy of 3 feats, you said; So you misunderstood my point, and then blame me for that? The original point was that "[Assay Resistance] makes it easier to bypass SR, but comparably so to some feats." You replied that "Yeah, if you burn 3 precious feats." To which I replied "It's a matter of opinion, as I consider 4th level spell slots and up precious." In this context, I don't value feats as high as you. Feats are precious? I beg to differ. A human wizard gets how many feats? Sure, if you gave me free feats at no cost, I'd take them, just like I'd take free gold, magic items, or whatever. But nothing is free. If by taking one feat (or three even) I can free up my versatility in spellcasting, I'm going to take that option. If by taking one feat (or three) I roll less dice in which a failure results in a significant waste of opportunity, I'd do so. If I can take one feat so I don't have to conform to my enemy, I'd do so. I'd rather have my enemy conform to me than the other way around. By preparing Assay Resistance you are saying "the risk of failure in an endeavor I am aware of is too great to bear." I'd rather take three feats and totally ignore my DM's calls for SR checks than to change the way I want to plan for battle. This is, incidentally, why I prepare so many non-SR spells in the first place. You never asked what I meant by "comparably so." In fact, I meant that if your SR chance was 45% or lower, Arcane Mastery was always better from a mechanics point of view. It works all the time on every enemy (even ones you cannot see), saves spell slots, saves swift actions, and so on. You can cast Assay Resistance how many times a day? "I only face one SR creature a day." Neat, I face several a day (for campaign-specific reasons). If you suddenly run into a gaggle of Vrocks, what are you going to do? Probably the same thing I'm going to do versus a devil that's +3 my CR. Of course, in the Vrock example you're running against lots of possible SR failures whereas I just have one. In my case, I simply start casting my non-SR artillery. You? Or keeping evading my question, referring to irrelevant answer as 'see above'. Obviously I cannot predict that you are going to dismiss my claim as "irrelevant" when I believe just the opposite, so you cannot fault me for that. Or making other spell's weakness as AR's.(let's say in a campaign of no AR. you cast irresistible dance on a lich and fail, then what would you blame for it? The non-existent AR?) Lich's are undead, and undead are immune to Irresistible Dance. Further, I cannot believe you still misunderstand my point about SR. How about this: Having an SR check does not make a spell balanced. I cannot reduce it less than that. I have explained the reasoning in quite some detail in my prior two posts and have no desire to cut and paste them here. And, for the fifth time, Assay Resistance has nothing to do with this problem. It does not "fix" anything. Or semantic games like wrong vs 'flawed', or fix vs 'highlight'. Words are important. Ask any diplomat, government official, philosopher, or people participating in a logical debate. Goodbye, Sir. Indeed. Hope we can debate again sometime, perhaps under more pleasant circumstances.