Should Defensive Blast be altered in Conan 2nd?

[urdinaran]

Good to know Sutek; thanks, I will remember that one.

I think one of the biggest concerns is that you can use DB to do lots of damage to a large group of opponents. For example:

Tumble(move action)+Dodge+Mobility+Total Defense(standard action) then DB.

With this, a player can get behind the enemy and unleash a hellstorm, finishing off most opponents with very little risk. Done right, it will miss all friendlies and at higher levels will force a Massive Damage save.

I still like Vincent's suggestion: it's called Defensive Blast for a reason.

 

[slaughterj]

i just thought of some changes for DB to make it a little more defensive and actually including a risk for using it. afterall that is what magic is about in the hyborian age. only usable by some one knowing at least one sorcery style(might even limit it to summonings, curses or necromancy)

the sorceror chooses either to use fire or cold damage, either calling on the powers of hell or the outer darkness. all remaining pp are used up and each pp spent does 1d6 damage per pp but the sorceror must make a will save at the dc he set with his magic attack roll plus the amount of pp he spent to avoid having his soul carried off by a demon(instant death). a fate point can be spent to automatically succeed on the will save and must be spent before the sorceror rolls. if the sorceror survives he is fatigued and will not regain pp for a number of days equal to the amount of pp he spent on the blast.

also any one who isnt a sorceror(knows at least one sorcery style) and either witnesses or experiences the blast must make a fear of the unknown check, if they fail then they must immeadiately flee from the sorceror and if they succeed are shaken for 1d4 rounds. sorcerors who experience or witness this must also make a fear same but failure means they are shaken and success means they are unaffected but still likely to flee anyway.

I like the fear of the unknown aspect. Personally, I think the "defensive" power, whatever it is in its final form, should not totally nerf the sorceror. Otherwise, it is not *that* defensive, it's more like it puts you in yet another position in which you are in need of defense.

 

[Sutek]

Yeah. As long as it isn't an attack, a sorcerer could clear a room with it, but he's then stuck with no PP and everyone who stayed out of range.

Just realizing tat it's not an attack takes all the other PP regenerating factors out of the equation altogether.

Still don't like that it's Fire damage, but it's a lot more sane now to me if it doesn't count as an attack.

 

[slaughterj]

That's cool, but the only mechanical problem with DB is that if coupled with the feat Opportunistic Sacrifice, then the Sorcerer can set up a recursive loop of freebie PP, spending it on the blast and then soaking up more PP afterwards.

However, I think I just cracked the code.

DB says it's a Free Action in which all of the Srocerer's PP are expended and he blasts out multiple d6 fire damage zapping anyone unfortunate enough to be within a 10' radius of him.

Okay.

Opp. Sacrifice is used anytime you "slay an enemy, whether by magic, melee or ranged attacks."

So, if you have to attack to Opp. Sacrifice, and DB is a Free Action rather than an attack, you can't do Opp. Sacrifice when you DB.

Did I just have an epiphany, or is this suddenly just really obvious to me?

:shock:

It is still an attack, even if the action it requires is less than a standard action. Further, it is still magic.

 

[Sutek]

But it isn't. It's just a blast. There's no attack roll made, so it isn't an attack. Just draw a circle out at the 10'radius and zap anyone in that circle. Nothing in the description says it's an attack, including the fact that it can be enacted during an opponent's turn.

It's just a blast of Power and not an attack, so can't be coupled with attack modifying feats.

Makes it make perfect sense now that I notice this fact about how everything is written. Takes all the mechanical controversy out of it anyway. Now it's down to the canon-keepers to argue that it simply needs to go on priciple because REH is rolling over in his grave over it.

At least in my opinion, anyway... :wink:

 

[slaughterj]

But it isn't. It's just a blast. There's no attack roll made, so it isn't an attack. Just draw a circle out at the 10'radius and zap anyone in that circle. Nothing in the description says it's an attack, including the fact that it can be enacted during an opponent's turn.

It's just a blast of Power and not an attack, so can't be coupled with attack modifying feats.

Makes it make perfect sense now that I notice this fact about how everything is written. Takes all the mechanical controversy out of it anyway. Now it's down to the canon-keepers to argue that it simply needs to go on priciple because REH is rolling over in his grave over it.

At least in my opinion, anyway... :wink:

I see you did not address that it is still magic though In your quote, Opp. Sacrifice works if the target is slain by magic. Do you deny that DB is magic?

Regardless, just because something is area of effect (and therefore lacks an attack roll) doesn't negate the fact that it is an attack. How about DnD's Magic Missile, seems like an attack to me, even though it doesn't require an attack roll? And just because it is during an opponent's turn has nothing to do with it, what about a triggered arrow trap, that's still an attack and happens to the target on the target's turn when the target triggers the trap!

 

[Sutek]

Opp. Sacrifice states that it can be done following a magic, melee or ranged attack. Not just "magic".

I don't deny that DB is magic, but it isn't an attack. That's the RAW under Opp. Sacrifice.

Magic Missile is a spell, and spells are attacks that Wizards or Sorcerers can make a sa standard action in Dungeons and Dragons. Therefore it is an attack.

Without going into a discussion about how to debate and pointing out that bring up rules from other games to make your point about this one is falacious at best, a triggered trap isn't an attack either - it's an encounter, thus getting XP for disabling them in D&D just as much as triggering them. An attack roll is made versus AC because that's the way they decided those typoes of traps will behave.

DB says expend all PP and affect targets within a 10'radius with inflicted damage. Period.

Can you at least stay in the Conan rule set when making you arguments, please. We've got to have a frame work to stay in or we could bring up rules from any other d20 game out there to make points, and that'd be just as pointless as using D&D examples to make Conan points.

 

[Netherek]

I have to say, why on Valusia is the scholar sticking around long enough to be forced to use DB in the first place. If you nerf it to make it so it isn't game breaking the scholar is still hosed.

Now you might be wondering what I mean so here goes. If you nerf it so it doens't stack with Opportunistic Sacrifice, it's now a one shot weapon. So in the thick of combat, he either must use it against the first guy who attacks him, or hope and pray he lives long enough to use it on a group.

If he does survive, there is still likely to be one who waits him out to drop him after his uber damage now that he is out of sorcerous power.

It still ends up a poor mechanical solution.

Fear, intimidation, alchemy, and spells handle this much better, and fits the genre. Here's an example using existing rules...

An Adept of Necromancy with death touch, can ready action to death touch anyone who moves in to attack. If some one moves in cast death touch defensively as a free action, and make the touch to deliver him to deaths door. Granted this is a tactic for a higher level scholar, but that is just off the top of my head.

If dramatic use of spells and alchemy caused fear and terror, that would really shake things up.

I really want DB removed. Maybe we need to think outside the box, another method for Rule of Defense might be a Spell of Opportunity against foes that move into melee...

 

[jadrax]

If they really want to match it with the quote it should be some sort of damage shield.

Maybe for every point of damage you deal to a sorcerer you take a point of fire damage in return?

Or even kill a sorcerer and you lose a fate point, (which is pretty similar to the current effect, but a lot more in line with the feel of Conan imho.)

 

[Foxworthy]

If they really want to match it with the quote it should be some sort of damage shield.

Maybe for every point of damage you deal to a sorcerer you take a point of fire damage in return?

Or even kill a sorcerer and you lose a fate point, (which is pretty similar to the current effect, but a lot more in line with the feel of Conan imho.)

Or even as a spell. Nothing says in that quote that all sorcerers are walking fireballs.

DB is an attack though, it's called an counter attack in the rulebook.

It's a stupid ability that relaly doesn't mirror though intent. You might as well put fireballs and magic missle in the rulebook as they are more restricted. It's horrible game design.

If they wanted to make magic more powerful in defence than maybe the designer should have made some spells that can be used as a powerful defense. A super fireball effect that you learn alongside your firts spell is absurd.

 

[argo]

Ah, defensive blast... will we never tire of fighting over you? :roll:

I've been prety vocal on this issue before, I won't rehash my points here since I seem to be minority for liking DB. Instead I'll just focus on highlighting what I think is the essential point of DB.

IMC I've come to accept DB, warts and all, because I consider it to be "generic close-range death magic". Now, I'll grant that there are easily several different mechanics that can have this effect, and maybe some might be superior to current "1d6 fire per PP blown" but I think its essential that sorcorers have some magic to blast their enemies with right from the word go.

I must admit, I really don't get all these arguments - pointing to the cannon and crying that sorcorers have to be physically unthreatening or it isn't "in genre". I don't see anything like that in the cannon. All I see is the sorcorers are dangerous, deadly people. Sorcorers shrivel your flesh with a touch, they shatter your consciousness with a gaze, they suck your very soul from your body with the power of their mind. I don't see anything in the canon that says they are supposed to be wimps. Sorcorers use magic. Even a weak sorcorer should be able to use magic to kill else they loose something IMO.

Like I said, I think of DB as "generic close-range death magic". It is the basic spell; narowly usefull, difficult to control and it leaves you vulneurable when you finish. Sorcorers who invest in more potent death magic get better returns (better range, more selective, doesn't burn all your PP in one shot). So even if the designers do decide to overhaul DB for 2nd edition I hope they find a way to perserve the function of death magic.

One thing this game does not need is to make scholars less deadly :twisted:

Later.

 

[argo]

That's cool, but the only mechanical problem with DB is that if coupled with the feat Opportunistic Sacrifice, then the Sorcerer can set up a recursive loop of freebie PP, spending it on the blast and then soaking up more PP afterwards.

However, I think I just cracked the code.

DB says it's a Free Action in which all of the Srocerer's PP are expended and he blasts out multiple d6 fire damage zapping anyone unfortunate enough to be within a 10' radius of him.

Okay.

Opp. Sacrifice is used anytime you "slay an enemy, whether by magic, melee or ranged attacks."

So, if you have to attack to Opp. Sacrifice, and DB is a Free Action rather than an attack, you can't do Opp. Sacrifice when you DB.

Did I just have an epiphany, or is this suddenly just really obvious to me?

:shock:

Nice try... but no dice.

First of all, check your quote from Opportunistic Sacrifice again

Benefit: You gain the benefits of the Ritual Sacrifice feat any time you slay an enemy, whether by magic, melee or ranged attacks.

The use of commas in that sentence means that you gain the benefit any time you slay an enemy. That is all. Your point about what is and isn't an attack is moot.

This is further supported by the passage immediately following your quote

Normal: You must slay a helpless opponent with a coup de grace to gain the benefits of the Ritual Sacrifice feat.

When you place these two passages in contex with one another it becomes clear that the purpose of Opportunistic Sacrifice is to allow you to gain the benefit of Ritual Sacrifice any time you kill an enemy, no matter what the method used to kill him.

Or to put it another way. [Inigo Montoya]"That word... I do not think it means what you think it means."[/Inigo Montoya] :lol: 8)

Later.

 

[Krushnak]

my idea for the change to DB really suits the character having the demonic pact as his background and could even be a suitable requirement to know the spell. the fire or cold damage represents what kind of demon you have sold your soul too and also the damage done isnt strictly done by the sorceror but by the demon as he tries to consume the souls of the sorcerors enemies using the sorcerors pp to enhance his own powers. the visual effect would change from sorceror to sorceror, some using a fire nova with others having tentacles of cold fire spring forth from their hands etc.

besides being totally against canon i just dont see any logical reason why DB is known by every single sorceror regardless of what and how many sorcery styles he knows. a lot more reasonable suggestion would be to give an additional 'basic' defensive spell when you learn your first sorcery style. so necromancy and summoning could be this highly effective but extremely dangerous demonic "explosion". where as nature magic could infuse the sorceror with the power of his specific totem animal allowing him to go toe to toe with some of the most fearsome beasts but only for a short while before being completely exhausted. not all sorcerors know death magic and so not all should be able to use it.

i really dont like this attitude of giving them something for nothing, that kind of thinking would imply that all soldiers automatically count as being always equipped with a greatsword which is a lie. yes sorcerors are dangerous, deadly and having amazing powers in the stories but they are all high level sorcerors who survive that long by running long before they get in any real trouble. it's their own arrogance that kills them in the end.

 

[argo]

the visual effect would change from sorceror to sorceror, some using a fire nova with others having tentacles of cold fire spring forth from their hands etc.

So you've read my other posts on this subject? 8)

Yea, I agree. DB is the generic "I kill you" magic spell. If you read the rules closely you will see that it is actually not described as a "fireball". I think half of the histerics that come out over it could be done away with if folks would just remember that.

a lot more reasonable suggestion would be to give an additional 'basic' defensive spell when you learn your first sorcery style. so necromancy and summoning could be this highly effective but extremely dangerous demonic "explosion". where as nature magic could infuse the sorceror with the power of his specific totem animal....

Cool. Such an expanded list of "alternative" DB's would be interesting and flavorfull. The current "1d6 fire damage per PP" is a sort of one-size-fits-all solutioun.

However as I said above, my central point is that magic users should have a built-in "I f**k you over" spell. Make it difficult to control and have some blowback cost for the sorcorer but they do need a basic offensive power.

It is the idea that scholars should automatically be chumps that irritates me.

Later.

 

[Netherek]

Where have I said that Scholars must be weak???

On another note though, a non-sorcerous scholar doesn't get DB, and get little in return for not having it. Fear is an effective weapon, and it's one that should be emphasized.

Frankly, it's broken, spell of doom that really gets me. For instance Thoth-Amon can in theory do 60d6 DB. Now you might say well don't approach until you know he's out of PP, but you have no way to tell.

Another reason why it's broke. Divination and Ward get it as well, but what uber damage spell/ability that invokes the wrath of god fits those styles???

No need to cover Op Sacrifice, everyone know's that combo is broke. Hell Star Wars vitality system had less game breaking aspects and it's getting dropped. I think the wisest thing to do is use fear, improve Alchemy, and add a few spells that might work in close quarters.

 

[Sutek]

Nice try... but no dice.

First of all, check your quote from Opportunistic Sacrifice again

Benefit: You gain the benefits of the Ritual Sacrifice feat any time you slay an enemy, whether by magic, melee or ranged attacks.

The use of commas in that sentence means that you gain the benefit any time you slay an enemy. That is all. Your point about what is and isn't an attack is moot.

This is further supported by the passage immediately following your quote

Normal: You must slay a helpless opponent with a coup de grace to gain the benefits of the Ritual Sacrifice feat.

When you place these two passages in contex with one another it becomes clear that the purpose of Opportunistic Sacrifice is to allow you to gain the benefit of Ritual Sacrifice any time you kill an enemy, no matter what the method used to kill him.

See, I read it as a series of instances separated by those commas: magic, melee or ranged given as types of attacks you must engage in to accomplish the previous condition. I also see the inclusion of coup de grace in the entry to indicate that specific action, not general, is needed in that case to clarify that, normally, you have to get a target helpless and perform that finishing strike, as opposed to what Opp.Sacrifice allows. In other words, it just tells you how you'd normally have to sacrifice somone to get thier PP drained: deliberate full-round action using a melee weapon.

It's saying that if you attack then and they die, as opposed to pushing them over a cliff or throwing them to lions, then you can do an Opp.Sacrifice, but it can be any sort of attack.

DB is not described as an attack; just as a free action.

Now, I've suggested in the past, as a fix for the whole fire damage business, that the "damage roll" instead be thought of as generating a STR stat for the blast and dishing out basic blunt damage plus an automatic Bull Rush to everyone within the radius. That works out as being much more defensive to me, forcing foes to go flying back when they get blasted.

 

[Krushnak]

sutek your suggestion would work well as a prestigitation defense spell. but again it must be asked why would some one who knows nature magic or divination be able to pull something like that off? defensive blast needs to be based on the sorcery styles chosen by the character.

as has been pointed out why do non sorcerous scholars not get some form of auto defense? really its because no other character class does so i really do see why a sorcerous scholar should be an exception. especially at low levels.

 

[sbarrie]

My previous solution to the defensive blast "problem". I tweaked it a bit since, based upon feedback.

 

[argo]

See, I read it as a series of instances separated by those commas: magic, melee or ranged given as types of attacks you must engage in to accomplish the previous condition.

Except that the phrase "whether by" appeares after the first comma and is used to introduce a series of alternatives. There are many ways you can slay someone and the feat lists several but the crtical clause is the slaying of the enemy. IOW it is a list of ilistrative examples. The feat clearly states you gain the benefit any time you slay an enemy

I also see the inclusion of coup de grace in the entry to indicate that specific action, not general, is needed in that case to clarify that, normally, you have to get a target helpless and perform that finishing strike, as opposed to what Opp.Sacrifice allows. In other words, it just tells you how you'd normally have to sacrifice somone to get thier PP drained: deliberate full-round action using a melee weapon.

Ah, but contex is everything. Those two passages are placed together for a reason. Normally you need to slay a helpless opponent with a CdG to gain the benefit, the feat Opp Sacrifice lets you gain the benefit any time you slay an enemy. When you take the entire passage in contex the intent becomes clear.

Have you considered the fact that, in the nearly 3 years this game has been out and considering all the debate over Opp Sacrifice (which presumably implies many people reading the feat) that you would be the first person to suggest this alternative reading? Does that not suggest that most english readers have a different intrepretation of the passage than you?

Later.

 

[slaughterj]

[Have you considered the fact that, in the nearly 3 years this game has been out and considering all the debate over Opp Sacrifice (which presumably implies many people reading the feat) that you would be the first person to suggest this alternative reading? Does that not suggest that most english readers have a different intrepretation of the passage than you?

Perhaps you don't remember that Sutek is the ONLY person who doesn't understand the section on losing dodge or parry bonuses and enabling sneak attack? I.e., he thinks that if you lose your parry bonus, that you can still be sneak attacked by a bow. :lol: