Blasphemy..!

[hong]

You changed your stance since last this was discussed. I was using the info you gave me. Apparently in the spell description it said the banishment affect worked even if the person did not hear the word. Though it is true that Silence protects against all spells with the sonic descriptor, I thought you had assumed that the spell explanation suerceded the descriptor in this case.

I just looked it up, it does say the banishment works "even if the characters do not hear the Blasphemy." Are you no longer assuming that the sonic descriptor is superceded by the text in the spell?

Note that whether or not someone hears a spell has no effect on what descriptor that spell has. For example, you could be deafened and still take damage from a shout spell.

 

[two]

What, nobody in the party has a bard cohort (or two) for purposes of countersong?

(although countersong vs. blasphemy might not work given there is no save...hm...)

 

[Ferret]

Blasphemy dazes bgecause it like swearing lots at you and your taken by suprise. Dictum is more like geting a very loud uber-telling-off.

 

[hong]

Blasphemy dazes bgecause it like swearing lots at you and your taken by suprise. Dictum is more like geting a very loud uber-telling-off.

By jove, Ferret has got it!

 

[Celtavian]

re

Note that whether or not someone hears a spell has no effect on what descriptor that spell has. For example, you could be deafened and still take damage from a shout spell.

I'm aware of that. That is why the question is specifically for Hypersmurf. I believe he was the person on an earlier thread who stated that the banishment effect still work even when silenced. He could have been referring to the 3.0 version of the spell. I don't specifically recall. I just know this topic has been discussed many, many times and I only stated what seemed to the final conclusion on previous threads.

 

[Trainz]

IMC, we've houseruled it quite a while ago. We buffed it, and nerfed it:

Buff: It can affect creatures with more levels/hit dice than the caster (for the Daze effect only).

Nerf: There's a Will saving throw to resist the spell.

This solves all the problems with the spell.

 

[UltimaGabe]

It's not so much the rogues sneak attacking the party as the enemy wizard hitting them with a horrid wiltings and a quickened fireball while they're dazed and then the enemy barbarian charging one of the softened characters, power attacking, and cleaving into another softened character. Or something like that.

The Dazed party would be just as susceptible to damage as if they weren't dazed. You retain your Dex bonus to AC while dazed, attackers get no bonus to attack you while dazed, and you can still make Reflex saves- you just can't take any actions. So anything that they'd be able to do to a Dazed party they'd be able to do just as well as a non-Dazed party- they just wouldn't be able to retaliate.

If a party is weak enough to be killed in a single round, then Blasphemy isn't the issue- the encounter is the issue.

I'd say anything that primarily causes death is saved by death ward.

A fireball doesn't cause death, it causes hp damage. Hp damage can cause death.

Interesting logic. A Coup de Grace attack primarily causes death. True, it causes damage as well, but that's just a pleasant side effect. And yet, nobody is arguing that a Coup de Grace is protected against by Death Ward. Also, some poisons cause Instant Death. Does Death Ward protect against such poisons?

 

[SpadeHammerfist]

This is all great stuff, though I'm not sure we're coming to a consensus

Most agree that the spell is too powerful as is, and people are obviously house ruling it (upping the levels of targets it can affect and giving a saving throw seems to be the most fair).

I like Ferret's concept of describing the spells' different effects by describing the spells as doing something slightly different (a telling off, rather than a lot of rude words, etc). But at the end of the day, (I MUST STOP USING THAT PHRASE!) the four spells are supposed to be equivalent. The whole point of spell design is that spells of the same level are of the same power; and these spells aren't just that they are the same concept (just for different alignments)!

What really winds me up is that this is a prime example of where Wizards have nerfed our game; with, let's face it, a tinkering with a system we were all just learning to like, for financial gain. Now I don't mind them making financial gain, if they didn't we wouldn't get any product, but it is the responsibility of the producer of a product to provide a well-thought out and tested product. Too often, problems arise in a 3.5 game that arise because of badly thought out concepts and not enough proper trialling.

Now I know that Wizards will claim that they were only responding to our responses to 3.0, but if that was the case, why didn't they ask us IF we wanted a revision?

Which brings me back to Blasphemy, and funnily enough, Sleep! Sleep has been severely ruined as a spell for any Bard, Sorceror or Wizard to want to take. The reasoning for this was because it was a spell that could give an instant kill, and Wizards thought that this was to be avoided. Yes, good point, but did anyone (has anyone ever) complained about Sleep (a core spell for always)? Then look at the effects, or consequences of Blasphemy, et al...
Potential instant kills? Yep. Nerfed? Nope. HUH!? Logic error...does not compute...bzzeiaarp!

 

[Trainz]

This is all great stuff, though I'm not sure we're coming to a consensus

Most agree that the spell is too powerful as is, and people are obviously house ruling it (upping the levels of targets it can affect and giving a saving throw seems to be the most fair).

Hah !

Give me a job at WIZARD OF THE COAST DAMMIT !

 

[MerakSpielman]

What, nobody in the party has a bard cohort (or two) for purposes of countersong?

(although countersong vs. blasphemy might not work given there is no save...hm...)

Yup. Countersong doesn't work.