How to beat the "20 always succeeds" rule

[akbearfoot]

Slow does crap to reduce an opponents saves, and doesn't help much against a brute monster that can just Power attack for 10 and still clobber someone with a single attack.

Unluck is similar to any other save or suck spell...it's better than most save or die spells, because it targets an easier save. But it can affect a lot more creatures types than many of those spells, and it's effective on things that slow can't do much to stop.

It's like forcing a monster to re-roll every attack/save. I played a fatespinner and that ability turned out to be VERY useful.

I can't think of many PCs that would prefer having to re-roll all their attacks/saves, versus being slowed.

 

[DumbPaladin]

To Wyvernhand: All I can say is, I wish the spell were no save too, or no SR, but it's not. And I like the flavor of unluck, and it can definitely screw some monsters over very badly.

It's not actually my job in my party to cast the spell that kills the bad guys; the wizard's got that role. And he is usually too busy casting such spells (or seriously needed buffs like stoneskin or haste) to bother with things like this. So, I'd argue that it depends on the character casting it.

Slow is also the kind of spell I'm likely to cast, and both it and curse of impending blades are on my list of spells to potentially learn.

 

[Wyvernhand]

Slow does crap to reduce an opponents saves, and doesn't help much against a brute monster that can just Power attack for 10 and still clobber someone with a single attack.

If a bad guy hits you on a 2+, giving him 2 opportunities to roll a 1 is such a minor increase in, its barely worth noting. You'd be better off casting Blur or Displacement or something that gives a greater miss chance or hitting your foe with something like a Ray of Enfeeblement or Ray of Exhaustion that doesn't allow a save than Unluck.

Unluck is similar to any other save or suck spell...it's better than most save or die spells, because it targets an easier save. But it can affect a lot more creatures types than many of those spells, and it's effective on things that slow can't do much to stop.

No its not. Its worse. List me some examples of things that Unluck would be better than Slow? I mentioned that Slow isn't that effective vs casters, but neither is Unluck. Unluck doesn't stop the wizard from Fireballing you, or Baleful Polymorphing you into a fluffy bunny, or casting Hold Person so his minions can CDG you, or Glitterdusting you so you can't target him. If you have evidence to refute the catagorical analysis I did above, please, post it rather than making broad, unsupported generalizations.

It's like forcing a monster to re-roll every attack/save. I played a fatespinner and that ability turned out to be VERY useful.

I can't think of many PCs that would prefer having to re-roll all their attacks/saves, versus being slowed.

Unlike Fatespinner, though, Unluck relies on a foe first FAILING their save, AND takes an action. Fatespinner requires neither. IF you are gonna spend a whole action and rely on your foe to fail their save, USE SOMETHING ELSE. Seriously, Glitterdust, Slow, Deep Slumber, Phantasmal Killer, Baleful Polymorph, ANYTHING. It is NOT good for setting up 1-2 punches between 2 casters, as I stated above, because if they probably would have failed their save vs the Unluck, they would have failed their save vs something BETTER like Glitterdust or Slow or Iron Bands or Stinking Cloud or Hold Person or anything. And even if they fail their save vs Unluck, that doesn't mean they'll fail their save vs the followup spell, whatever it is. If Unluck doesn't disable a foe on its own, and doesn't garuntee that my next spell will work, then it sounds to me like a waste of an action.

I understand that it works on a large range of foe, so does Slow, so does Glitterdust, both of which give GAME ENDING status debuffs. Seriously, Glitterdust makes you blind, which is essentially the same as making everyone else invisible. That gives everyone 50% miss chance. In order for Unluck to give a 50% miss chance, the attacker has to be able to hit on a 11+ on their attack roll. Most big bruiser foes that you would target with this spell are gonna hit on a 2+. If I was a melee character intent on taking down a Hill Giant, for example, I'd rather it Blinded or Slowed than Unlucked, because it can still full attack me while Unlucked (can't while Slowed) and if it did full attack me, I'd rather enjoy a 50% miss chance than a 5% miss chance, or better yet, I'd stay out of range and use ranged attacks, or simply make single attacks and move away so that it couldn't even find my square easily.

I like the idea of Unluck, trust me, I do. I've seen it cast. I can tell you, it FAILS in execution. Its not worth the action because it has a save. Almost every other save vs debuff spell at that level is better in nearly every circumstance.

 

[anest1s]

Unlike Fatespinner, though, Unluck relies on a foe first FAILING their save, AND takes an action. Fatespinner requires neither.

...

It is NOT good for setting up 1-2 punches between 2 casters, as I stated above, because if they probably would have failed their save vs the Unluck, they would have failed their save vs something BETTER like Glitterdust or Slow or Iron Bands or Stinking Cloud or Hold Person or anything. And even if they fail their save vs Unluck, that doesn't mean they'll fail their save vs the followup spell, whatever it is.

But it helps with not just the following spell, but also every spell you cast him for 1 round/lvl. If it works, you can use your low-level spells which would have no hope for working otherwise. Plus a small-or-not so small bonus on your defense, since they have to attack twice.

 

[Wyvernhand]

And if Slow had worked, you wouldn't really NEED another spell, would you? Or Bands of Steel, or Baleful Polymorph, or Glitterdust, or any other save vs suck spell. Why use 2 spells to do the work of 1, especially when the first requires a save in the first place. No...if you are gonna cast a spell and rely on a failed save to do all the work, you want that spell to do all the work. Unluck doesn't do all the work. Its a piddly drawback compared to conditions like Blinded or Slowed.

At low levels, you can't afford to be blowing all of your slots on Unluck + X. You are better off just casting X, and casting it again if it doesn't work the first time. At higher levels, the save on Unluck will be too low, and the results of X will be that much more decisive.

As Dandu stated, its the same problem as Mindfog. If you fail your save vs Mindfog, you are probably screwed. If, instead of casting Mindfog, you had skipped straight to Dominate Person, that save they failed vs Mindfog would have been a failed save vs Dominate Person instead, and the person would be your slave in a single spell. If they made the save vs Mindfog, your follow-up Dominate Person is unmodified, just the same as if you had cast Dominate Person twice, with the first one being successful.

So again I state: Unluck (and Mindfog) are bad spells because they are horribly inefficient and bad at doing what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to make it EASIER to land spells at a later point, but due to the fact that they have saves themselves, are horribly self defeating in this task. IF Unluck was either a swift action spell (like Assay Spell Resistance), it would be good. If it didn't have a save (like Curse of Impending Blades) it would be good. With both, it is horrible, inefficient, and a waste of both a spell slot and an action.

 

[DumbPaladin]

If a bad guy's slowed, all he needs is his buddy (or himself) to cast haste and it fixes the slow.

The only perfect way to "fix" Unluck is to own and have on you a Stone of Good Luck, I believe it is called -- otherwise, you have to dispel magic on yourself and hope you don't get rid of all the positive spells cast on you as well.

I'm not sure why you think any spell that allows a save and takes a standard action is "a waste of an action" unless it outright kills the monster. It almost suggests that you think there are only 14 spells out of the hundreds that anyone should ever play with.

That'd be incredibly boring, I have to tell you.

 

[Wyvernhand]

It doesn't have to KILL him, but it should disable him. Especially from a 3rd level slot. And there are lots of spells worth memorizing. Buffs, utility, movement, defenses, and yes, BC/Kill/Attack spells. If I'm gonna take a standard action to debuff or attack someone so that my pet fighter can safely engage it, I want it to be effective.

And I'd rather have an non-hasted non-slowed baddy than a hasted baddy with a small miss chance from Unluck. The extra attack at full attack bonus is a lot of damage. If an enemy caster takes a whole round undoing my slow spell, then he's trading actions to directly counter me and I've already won.

Trust me, I want to like Unluck. I think its a great thematic spell. It just doesn't deliver. Thats why I made the suggestions I did. Take away the action cost or the save and its perfect. Barring that, it just doesn't stack up as I wrote up on the first page. Its too minor of an inconvenience to be worth it, especially when you compare it to Slow or Glitterdust, two of the most iconic low level wizard disable spells.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

You keep talking about this small miss chance... I've seldom seen monsters hit on a 2+, even against the mages (who likely have an actual miss chance on top of the AC, but that's besides the point), I've seen Unluck turn many "maybe successes" (we'd roll the dice together, so hard to tell which one wouldv'e come "first") into failures. And even against a mage who uses no attack spells and no SR spells, it will still affect skill checks (spot, concentrate...) and opposed checks like grapple and trip. As for melee brutes, some only get one attack anyway. Others have pounce, and can full attack even while slowed if you don't keep in melee with them.

Unluck "sticks" easier than Slow (harder to remove), is pretty debilitating in its own right (I think you're mistaken...you don't use Unluck to make another spell easier to get through, you use it to cripple someone all on its own), and as I mentioned...the Spontaneous Divination variant makes it a reliable fallback spell to know. It may not be as good as slow, but it's still a good spell worth using. Glitterdust is just plain overpowered and makes even much higher level spells like Hold Monster seem worthless, and I'm not sure what other level 3 or lower win spells you're thinking of for comparison.

 

[Dandu]

Bands of Steel is pretty bad for people.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

Unluck is a terrible spell. It costs an action and is subject to a save. It would be decent if it didn't have one or the other, but as it stands, its bad. You might as well just cast the kill spell you are aiming for twice.

If you are a Fatespinner, you can force a foe to reroll twice per day, or use it to reroll your own saves twice per day, or any combination in between.

Um....

As I understand it

1. Most spells do use a standard action to cast.
2. Also, most spells allow a save

Now, the spell lasts 1 round/lvl and ANY time the enemy creature takes ANY action they roll TWICE and take the WORST result-attack rolls, saves, damage rolls, grapple checks EVERY single thing. I've only seen it used IMC a few but...it can jack a monster around.

In my mind YEAH you coulda just cast a Save/Die or Suck twice and if it didnt work the second time, cast it again-but unluck ENSURES that it always rolls twice and applies the very worse result PLUS its a debuff that helps the WHOLE party in the fight.