Okay, this spell has a 60 foot range, but is a 15 foot cone.
Cones have to start from one corner in the same square as the caster, or if they start from another creature or object one corner of their square.
But Vitrifying Blast doesn't state that it starts from another creature or object. Is that just assumed? Or is the AOE (cone) incorrect for this spell? Or is the range incorrect?
The spell seems like just a normal cone spell from the description. so if I had to guess the range is a mistake.
Maybe it's not and it's a cone originating from a point within the range but it'd be nice for the spell to say that more clearly if that was the intent.
Spell description seems to imply it's merely a 15 foot cone, the range entry makes no sense given it doesn't expand on this any further.
That being said, it's pretty uninspiring for a spell of that level. Mass Slow seems more potent by comparison, so maybe if it created a 15 foot cone within 60 feet it would have better parity.
Spell description seems to imply it's merely a 15 foot cone, the range entry makes no sense given it doesn't expand on this any further.
That being said, it's pretty uninspiring for a spell of that level. Mass Slow seems more potent by comparison, so maybe if it created a 15 foot cone within 60 feet it would have better parity.
Being able to force weaknesses is interesting if you have ways to get your party to hit the enemy a bunch. Not very great considering the level but kind of interesting.
Sure, but it's not worth forgoing the enemies being Slowed 1 for the entire fight, which does a lot more in terms of damage mitigation and/or control compared to the weakness, which doesn't work well in any situation (except for maybe overleveled NPC spellcasters).
If they are weaker enemies, the weakness will be minimal for that level to justify using it compared to Slow (because lucky saves means they cease being Slowed), and if they're stronger enemies, they will easily save out of the Slowed effect, which the weakness is expressly tied to. Doubly painful simply because the consecutive saves are Incapacitate, which means the stronger enemies are practically guaranteed to save from them and end the effect within a round.
Even if you get, say, 5 successful hit of the appropriate type in a round, it's only an extra 15 damage, which is basically the average of a 3 action 3rd level Magic Missile, so it's honestly not that potent.
Well, it does say 'cone' twice. Once in the Area entry and once in the RAI sentence.
So... Maybe the Remaster has some rules for casting a cone at range like it does for burst?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the CRB kinda answers this imo.
Sometimes a spell has an area, which can be a burst, cone, emanation, or line. The method of measuring these areas can be found on page 456. If the spell originates from your position, the spell has only an area; if you can cause the spell’s area to appear farther away from you, the spell has both a range and an area.
Since the spell has both a range and an area, it is reasonable to assume that you can have it project from any square within it's range. Could be nice for shooting around a corner or something I suppose.
And that feels far more in line with a 6th level spell than a standard 15' cone.
Still a very underwhelming spell compared to Slow, which affects 10 creatures in a 30 foot emanation (60 if we use Reach), and doesn't risk friendly fire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the CRB kinda answers this imo.
Sometimes a spell has an area, which can be a burst, cone, emanation, or line. The method of measuring these areas can be found on page 456. If the spell originates from your position, the spell has only an area; if you can cause the spell’s area to appear farther away from you, the spell has both a range and an area.
That's a good point.
Also, the rules for Cone do have rules for if you are creating a cone starting from somewhere other than your own character.
We just haven't had a spell with both a cone area and a range before.
Still a very underwhelming spell compared to Slow, which affects 10 creatures in a 30 foot emanation (60 if we use Reach), and doesn't risk friendly fire.
Slow also doesn't do a bunch of damage and add damage weakness to one of the most common types of damage that player characters use.
Still a very underwhelming spell compared to Slow, which affects 10 creatures in a 30 foot emanation (60 if we use Reach), and doesn't risk friendly fire.Slow also doesn't do a bunch of damage and add damage weakness to one of the most common types of damage that player characters use.
If the goal is to do damage, then other spells of the same level are better. At that point Chain Lightning is more effective to cast if we want damage. And it's already acknowledged that the weakness is both underwhelming and fleeting in duration.
And if the idea is we want to inflict a debilitating condition, Slow is better. Even spells that do both debilitations and damage are better than this one. The Venn Diagram for this spell is so counter intuitive it might as well be two separate circles.
The only hypothetical use for this spell is from NPCs with a bunch of minions because they aren't limited by Incapacitate and have the numbers to properly exploit such a weakness to levels that are significant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what if the idea is to do all of the above at the same time?
Do you really think that the spell would be balanced well if it did a debuff as good as Slow, damage as good as Chain Lightning, and caused even a fleeting one-round damage buff - all for one spell slot and two action cast time?
This isn't the only spell in Rage of Elements to have both a range and a cone area. See also Elemental Breath, page 222.
Two mistakes, or new paradigm?
Elemental Breath also has a few other things to consider.
One, it is described as coming from your mouth. It may be the RAI line, but it shouldn't just be ignored.
Also, it is a 60 foot cone. A 15 foot cone (like Vitrifying Blast) is smaller than a 10 foot burst. A 60 foot cone is about the same size as a 30 foot burst.
And what if the idea is to do all of the above at the same time?
Do you really think that the spell would be balanced well if it did a debuff as good as Slow, damage as good as Chain Lightning, and caused even a fleeting one-round damage buff - all for one spell slot and two action cast time?
Then you are trying to do too much with that spell slot, and honestly, having a spell do not even half of either effect is still a pretty bad spell.
Point is, putting this spell compared to Slow or Chain Lightning, there is no contest. The spell is bad because it tries to do too much and is nerfed into uselessness to compensate for its limited versatility.
Then you are trying to do too much with that spell slot, and honestly, having a spell do not even half of either effect is still a pretty bad spell.
OK. See, you should lead with that.
Your point is that you don't like hybrid purpose spells. Similar to Phantasmal Killer (damage and frightened), or Rouse Skeletons (damage and difficult terrain).
It is fine to not like those spells. That doesn't mean that they aren't well designed or well balanced.
I actually like Phantasmal Killer because it does decent single-target damage, has good range, and has a good rider effect. The only Incapacitate part of the spell is the instant death, which makes sense.
All it really needs is some scaling corrections (still doing only 5d8 on a success at the endgame is a glaring issue) and it is solid.
Have not used Rouse Skeletons; probably weaker than Phantasmal Killer, but isn't expressly hindered by Incapacitate.
Meanwhile, this spell has reduced range, targets, and damage for Incapacitate Slow condition with minor weakness. Big oof, big pass.
Meanwhile, this spell has reduced range, targets, and damage for Incapacitate Slow condition with minor weakness. Big oof, big pass.Aghm. Guys, this spell is the new Petrify. Or Flesh to Stone. That is why the area is so small (before it was target: one creature), and the range is not a mistake. Comparing to FtS, it isn't at all worse, adds damage.
I actually completely forgot about this spell because it's also pretty bad. I suppose in this case, it's an improvement, but because it's of the same spell level, and has more broad applications, it's basically power creep.
I'd be more inclined to accept this if it was placed at 7th level (or Flesh to Stone was lowered to 5th level), since honestly, this is more of an NPC tactic than a PC tactic due to the Incapacitate restrictions.
Also, even with this revelation, this spell (as well as Flesh to Stone) is still worse than Slow or Chain Lightning separately.
I actually completely forgot about this spell because it's also pretty bad. I suppose in this case, it's an improvement, but because it's of the same spell level, and has more broad applications, it's basically power creep.Can't be a power creep if FtS would be removed from the game. And I'm almost sure it would be: it's from dnd. Also you yourself say it was too weak. Tuning up weak things is not power creep.
Power creep is defined as new options having a superior function to pre-existing options by nature of being superior to them in every way, often a result of pushing new product to the masses to entice them to purchase it.
By this definition, Vitrifying Blast is power creep towards Flesh to Stone for pre-remaster. Saying that Flesh to Stone won't exist in the remaster, so it's not an issue that Vitrifying Blast power creeps it, doesn't really track when I imagine a lot of home games are still going to be using a large amount of pre-remaster rules.
That's kind of a weird definition of power creep, since it means everything is power creep if Paizo happens to publish a single underpowered option somewhere along the line, even if the new options are worse than or on par with the baseline.
... Like you've spent this whole thread trashing on the spell only to deem it power creep I don't see how that's useful terminology.
This isn't the only spell in Rage of Elements to have both a range and a cone area. See also Elemental Breath, page 222.
Two mistakes, or new paradigm?
If it's worth anything, Elemental Breath got ruled in PFS:
Remove the range from the elemental breath spell (page 222). The cone is created from the user’s square.
Nothing for Vitrifying Blast though.
That's kind of a weird definition of power creep, since it means everything is power creep if Paizo happens to publish a single underpowered option somewhere along the line, even if the new options are worse than or on par with the baseline.
... Like you've spent this whole thread trashing on the spell only to deem it power creep I don't see how that's useful terminology.
The definition is for comparable options in particular. It's not power creep if Slow or Chain Lightning are the comparison (which is wrong to compare), but for Flesh to Stone, it is.
It's still terrible, but power creep is power creep. It is better than comparable options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, the better definition for Power Creep is for the top end of the power curve. Adding new options that are better than anything else available.
The reason that this is a better use for the derogatory term is because of its effect on the balance of the game as a whole. By adding Power Creep, the difficulty setpoint of the adventures also increases to match. Which means that options that existed previously are no longer viable - they won't hold up to the new, raised difficulty setpoint.
An option that is below the power ceiling is not Power Creep because it doesn't have that effect on the difficulty setpoint.
No, the better definition for Power Creep is for the top end of the power curve. Adding new options that are better than anything else available.
The reason that this is a better use for the derogatory term is because of its effect on the balance of the game as a whole. By adding Power Creep, the difficulty setpoint of the adventures also increases to match. Which means that options that existed previously are no longer viable - they won't hold up to the new, raised difficulty setpoint.
An option that is below the power ceiling is not Power Creep because it doesn't have that effect on the difficulty setpoint.
Just because it's the most common use of power creep (on the optimized end) doesn't make this not power creep. Before this spell came into existence, the only effect which included a scaling Incapacitate Slowed effect was Flesh to Stone. Now that this option exists, Flesh to Stone is obsolete as a mechanic.
If players were using Flesh to Stone on a regular basis, and then this spell gets published, being the same effect, but more, with no increase in spell level, it is indeed a form of power creep, even if most players prefer to use Slow instead (because having enemies turn to stone is an unrealistic gameplay expectation thanks to Incapacitate).
Setting aside the debate about whether or not improving a weak option counts as power creep, I'd like to object to the idea that Vitrifying Blast completely obsoletes Flesh to Stone. 1) Flesh to Stone has twice the range which is at least some compensation for the lack of AoE; 2) Flesh to Stone targets Fortitude while Vitrifying Blast targets Reflex; 3) Flesh to Stone ends in permanent petrification as soon as a high enough Slowed value is reached (3 in the vast majority of cases), whereas Vitrifying Blast caps at Slowed 3 and keeps allowing saves every turn until the Slowed value reaches 0, at which point the effect ends, 4) Flesh to Stone still inflicts Slow on a successful save, whereas Vitrifying Blast instead inflicts damage and damage weakness.
Different range, different saves, different success states, and different ultimate fail states, ergo different use cases.
Setting aside the debate about whether or not improving a weak option counts as power creep, I'd like to object to the idea that Vitrifying Blast completely obsoletes Flesh to Stone. 1) Flesh to Stone has twice the range which is at least some compensation for the lack of AoE; 2) Flesh to Stone targets Fortitude while Vitrifying Blast targets Reflex; 3) Flesh to Stone ends in permanent petrification as soon as a high enough Slowed value is reached (3 in the vast majority of cases), whereas Vitrifying Blast caps at Slowed 3 and keeps allowing saves every turn until the Slowed value reaches 0, at which point the effect ends, 4) Flesh to Stone still inflicts Slow on a successful save, whereas Vitrifying Blast instead inflicts damage and damage weakness.
Different range, different saves, different success states, and different ultimate fail states, ergo different use cases.
Things being different doesn't constitute that it's not power creep, especially when those differences are precisely what denotes it as power creep.
1. People usually aren't casting Flesh to Stone from 120 feet away every time, much less doing so with relative success, and that is if they are casting it at all. Odds are, they were casting from somewhere in the 30-60 foot range, which this spell covers. That's also not including the spell effect extending past the 60 foot range marker, which puts it even more in its favor (unless the range also means it can't extend past that point, in which case it's at-best a 45 foot range spell; talk about false advertising, in this case, but I'll save this sort of argument for a different thread).
2. Targeting Fortitude Saves is almost universally a worse thing to target compared to Reflex or Will. The amount of enemies with bad Fortitude saves while having better Reflex or Will saves is laughably bad. This might be different in regards to PCs, but that's not the part we're comparing. Point in favor of power creep here.
3. This is an edge-case scenario, it is like saying Phantasmal Killer is better/different than Phantasmal Calamity because it has a very, very slim chance of auto-killing lower level enemies. The thing that makes it different is that it's a single target damage effect with a Frightened condition rider, which Phantasmal Calamity does not implement. And honestly, enemies that fail the first save are likely to succeed on consecutive saves unless you get really bad rolls or are facing level-2 enemies (in which case just let the martials mop them up and spend your spell slots on other things). The fact that you can now do this for multiple enemies, combined with dealing damage on top of it, is a sign of power creep.
Just as well, Incapacitate tag basically means "NPC tool," because a PC using it for higher level enemies is futile, against equal level enemies is a wash (in which case the spell you cast doesn't matter, so why limit yourself with Incapacitate effects against the higher level enemies), and using it for lower level enemies is a waste of spell slots (when you can use other better spells, or just let the martials mop it up; it's what they're there for). But given that this is a significant comparison between the two, taking out the edge-case scenario won't change much in the grand scheme of things.
4. I find this to be a consequence of the spell providing multiple functions beyond the obvious comparison, and not a case of "This spell is an entirely different effect that just so happens to include XYZ as a rider," so listing it as a significant difference doesn't track. By that logic, Flesh to Stone and Slow are the same effect, yet they are not, even if both provide the Slowed condition, because they have actual significant differences, such as heightening for multiple targets, lacking Incapacitate, and having constant effects versus varying effects/duration(s). The differences presented for these two spells are far more insignificant or are in favor of power creep more than it is not in favor, in which case listing it as a difference doesn't really matter.
Maybe Flesh to Stone could use the power creep, it's a pretty terrible GM-only spell as it is. But saying it's not power creep isn't exactly an accurate take either.