Ghoul Touch

[Evil DM]

Hi folks,

I just wonder how powerfull the given spell Ghoul Touch is.

If I get the spell description right it paralyses a humanoid without a saving throw for 1d6+2 rounds. Since the Fort save belongs to the additional stench.

I agree that this spell seems not very handy for spellcasters since they must succeed with a melee touchattack. And bein' a melee fighter is for spellcasters always a bad idea (in my humble opinion!).

BUT with the new Duskblade from PH2 this spell seems handy again. Because the Duskblade is a frontliner and will hit successfuly!
Even if this spell does no damage it could go like this:
"Paralyzed, paralyzed, paralyzed...oke folks. Cut their throats!"

Any comments?

Cheers, Evil DM.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I read it as "Fortitude negates" to mean exactly that. I know later on it mentions a fort save to negate the stench, but that applies to other creatures near the target, not the target itself. Thus, since Ghoul Touch is a targeted spell, and it says fort. negates, the target should get a save. Still a good spell, just need to ram up the save DC. Also nice to combine w/ spectral hand or a familiar.

 

[moritheil]

Also of note is how elves are immune to ghoul touches, but not ghoul touch.

 

[azhrei_fje]

I read it as "Fortitude negates" to mean exactly that. I know later on it mentions a fort save to negate the stench, but that applies to other creatures near the target, not the target itself. Thus, since Ghoul Touch is a targeted spell, and it says fort. negates, the target should get a save. Still a good spell, just need to ram up the save DC. Also nice to combine w/ spectral hand or a familiar.

Agreed about the Fort save.

Yes, spectral hand and familiars are good. The DC can be bumped with the Heighten Spell feat. I never considered this a particularly good use of a feat, but if you're playing core-only (or mostly core) then in combination with a few other spells, Heighten Spell can be pretty good.

 

[Evil DM]

Thank you folks.
Given you are right, what does this spell then make it better then hold person which is at the same level?

For hold person you do not have to go into melee and you do not need to make a touch attack.

You stand save more than 100ft. away and cast your spell.

Sure, the victim is allowed to make an saving every round. But even if he succeeds directly in the first round after the spell has been cast upon him it takes him a fullround action where he doesn't do anything other.

Cheers, Evil DM.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I've found hold person to be a crappy spell in 3E, totally nerfed from 2E. It's rare for someone not to make their save, either initially or in the first couple rounds.

That being said, maybe hold person was too powerful back in the day or maybe it's just too powerful in 3E. I don't particularly mind it being nerfed as it was one of those spells back in 2E that had the potential to end an encounter pretty darn quickly.

 

[Darklone]

I always liked Ghoul Touch and used it nicely... just target the rogues and wizards, not the fighters

 

[jaelis]

Given you are right, what does this spell then make it better then hold person which is at the same level?

The stench effect, no save each turn, the fact that sorc/wiz's don't get hold person until 3rd level. Also, lots of people are immune or have save bonuses vs mind-affecting enchantments.

 

[Evil DM]

Point taken.

I think the next Duskblade Guardians in my Campaign will try that spell on the group casters.

Thank you folks.

Cheers, Evil DM.