Holy Word too powerful?

[Hypersmurf]

However, since Blasphemy is still a sonic spell, wouldn't it still be rendered ineffective with a silence spell?

Yup, but not deafness.

-Hyp.

 

[jgsugden]

Caster levels for monsters can be higher than their CR. For instance, a Hezrou (which can fire off a blasphemy) has a CR of 11, but a caster level of 13. An 8th level party versus a Hezrou is supposed to be a difficult challenge, but in fact, it is nearly impossible as the creature can paralyze them for 1d10 minutes with a blasphemy.

Also, PCs can raise their caster level via items and prestige classes. For instance, a heirophant with a certain ious stone can get a +2 to their caster level. That again puts us in a situation where a creature with a CR 3 higher than the average party level can paralyze the whole party with no saving throw.

Also, the half-fiend and half-celestial templates grant these types of spells. Be careful when granting these templates. A 1/2 fiend fire giant (CR 12) has blasphemy and a caster level of 15.

The lesson is: Be careful of these spells. Every once in a while, you might end up getting a TPK when your BBEG turns out to be nastier than you thought.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Caster levels for monsters can be higher than their CR. For instance, a Hezrou (which can fire off a blasphemy) has a CR of 11, but a caster level of 13. An 8th level party versus a Hezrou is supposed to be a difficult challenge, but in fact, it is nearly impossible as the creature can paralyze them for 1d10 minutes with a blasphemy.

That's why I like the as-written (pre-FAQ) 3E version of Blasphemy.

"Creatures native to the character's plane who hear the blasphemy and are not evil suffer the following ill effects:"

Which makes Blasphemy-at-will a "Get off my plane!" ability for fiends, but not a "Ha-ha, you're all dazed every round!" ability.

It's still nasty for your Iouned-up Hierophant... but at least he can't do it at will.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If a celestial is used as a "boss" encounter, their caster level could be higher than the party level, so watch everyone be dazed without a saving throw. When that happens, the celestial's allies start kicking butt. Now, if the creature can use holy word ever round it's just broken.

Oh - if he has a spare feat, make sure to consider Supernatural Transformation from Savage Species - makes one SLA a [Su] ability.

It's always irritating when some pesky PC has enough SR to beat the Holy Word... but [Su] abilities ignore SR.

-Hyp.

 

[Quasqueton]

Interesting.

Holy Word and Word of Chaos are defeated by deafness. If you can't hear the word, you aren't affected.

Blasphemy and Dictum are not. Any non-evil/non-lawful creature within the area (not "within the area, that hears the blasphemy/dictum") is affected.

Would it be a stretch to assume the missing phrase is a typo/mistake? Is there a reason for a difference between the spells? Unless someone can prove otherwise, I'm siding with the idea that each of those four spells should be alike (and using the "hears the X" addition).

Quasqueton

 

[Hypersmurf]

Would it be a stretch to assume the missing phrase is a typo/mistake? Is there a reason for a difference between the spells? Unless someone can prove otherwise, I'm siding with the idea that each of those four spells should be alike (and using the "hears the X" addition).

The alternative assumption one could make is that Blasphemy and Dictum were deliberately changed from the 3E wording to remove that "creature who hears" phrase, and that it was accidentally overlooked and left in on Word of Chaos and Holy Word.

A similar example is the hardness and hit points of magic weapons. The 3.5 DMG says "+1/+1 per point of enhancement bonus; equal or greater enhancement is required to harm a magic weapon", word for word exact from the 3E DMG.

The 3.5 PHB says "+2/+10 per point of enhancement bonus", with no mention of requiring equal or greater enhancement.

The one that was deliberately changed for 3.5 is correct; the one that accidentally stayed the same is... well, accidental.

-Hyp.

 

[Quasqueton]

I didn't realize there had been a change in the text of those spells from 3.0. Will have to check it out when I get home.

Wonder why they would change it?

Quasqueton

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wonder why they would change it?

Maybe they hadn't met their quota of "Spells that work almost like they used to" that day

-Hyp.

 

[Quasqueton]

I just checked through my 3.0 PHB, and check all this out:

3.0 spell descriptions

Blasphemy: "Creatures native to your plane who hear the blasphemy and are not evil suffer the following ill effects:"

Dictum: "Creatures native to your plane who hear the dictum and are not lawful suffer the following ill effects:"

Holy word: "Creatures native to your plane who hear the holy word and are not good suffer the following ill effects:"

Word of chaos: "Creatures native to your plane who hear the word of chaos and are not chaotic suffer the following ill effects:"

Now note the differences:

3.5 spell descriptions

Blasphemy: "Any nonevil creature within the area of a blasphemy spell suffers the following ill effects."

Dictum: "Any nonlawful creature within the area of a dictum spell suffers the following ill effects."

Holy word: "Any nongood creature within the area that hears the holy word suffers the following ill effects."

Word of chaos: "Any nonchaotic creature within the area who hears the word of chaos suffers the following ill effects."

Differences include periods at the end rather than colons.

3.0 phrasiology in all four spells is "who hear".
3.5 phrasiology in word of chaos only is "who hears". In holy word, it is "that hears". And of course, in blasphemy and dictum there is no "hears" at all.

Granted, the difference between "who" and "that" is negligable, but it suggests the changes were not a simple copy and paste through the spells. It looks like some editor touched each one of these spells, in the revision, but in 3 different ways for the 4 spells. So it might very well be that the omission of "hears" was not an intentional change -- might just have been sloppy editing/rewriting.

But it should also be noted that the whole spell description was changed in each spell, not just this one sentence.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

I finally get involved in one of these debates on details, and Hypersmurf ignores it. :-(

Quasqueton