Legion of Sentinels (PHB2 spell)

[smootrk]

OK, everyone take a look at Legion of Sentinels. I need rule gurus to help parse out the ramifications of the spell.

1st: Incorporeal Swordfighters - is this simply descriptive text, or do you therefore need magical weapons and still have 50% miss chance.
2nd: They make one attack of opportunity per round (each), but do they make attacks otherwise?
3rd: Regardless, what is their BAB, and what damage do they do?

Ultimately, is this spell broken beyond compare? Is there errata/FAQ that addresses this particular spell? Is there anything else wonky that I should address about this spell? Did this spell exist in a previous book with different description that I can reference?

basically, should this spell be banned or modified until some errata shows up? I hate to do that because thematically, I like the idea of the spell (and we happen to have a caster who specializes in Shadow Magics which this is perfect for otherwise.

 

[Particle_Man]

1) Incorporeal means incorporeal, as far as I know, so yes to the 50% miss chance, need magic weapons, etc.
2) It doesn't say they make attacks, so they only get the Aoo. Also fits the "sentinels" idea of guarding, as opposed to taking offensive action.
3) Damage on p. 100 says 1-8, +1/3 caster levels. To hit not mentioned but since saves and checks equal caster level, I would say to hit roll does too.

I wouldn't say it is that broken. At worst it is a "behave or get hurt by an Aoo" area effect, and the damage isn't exactly Conanesque by the time you get access to the spell. I suppose it might be bad for someone dumb enough to charge through a lot of squares of them.

 

[smootrk]

We were able to make similar deductions. It would all be a whole lot easier if the description was complete with the major conditions of the spell, rather than having to cross-reference the trunicated effects from the spell lists, and guessing the other portions.

I have not made any specific study of PHB2 spells, are there many other spells that don't seem all the way thought out?

 

[CodeChopper]

Hey Smooty...please don't ban it

Wow, my first post is this?

egw

 

[smootrk]

Hey Smooty...please don't ban it

Wow, my first post is this?

egw

No plans for a ban, but I do want concrete understanding of what it can do (or can't do). Much harder to judge a spell like this in play, than those ones that simply zap the target, or boost stats.

Mostly just pining for the whole spell description to be located with the actual spell
All this detective work should have been done prior to printing.

 

[CodeChopper]

No plans for a ban, but I do want concrete understanding of what it can do (or can't do). Much harder to judge a spell like this in play, than those ones that simply zap the target, or boost stats.

I thought what we came up with (pretty much in line with the above) worked fine. I'm anxious to see the erratta on this when it eventually comes out so we can see how close to the mark we are.

egw

 

[smootrk]

Agreed. Just looking for other opinions... or the hope that there is an official or semi-official rewrite of the spell description that touches all the major points of the spell.

For instance, in the area of the spell that describes their HP's and AC, the spell should say:
Each sword fighter has hit points equal to twice your caster level, an Armor Class of 25, and being incorporeal, requires force effects or a magical weapon (or equivalent) in order to strike it, and then still has a 50% miss chance. Its Base Attack Bonus, saving throw modifiers or ability checks have a bonus equal to your caster level.

The other paragraph should state specifically that they make 1 and only one attack per round for 1d8 +1 per 3 caster levels (max ?), but only as an attack of opportunity, otherwise they simply stand there menacingly.... or something similar. Damage had to be gathered from another table in the book on a different page.

All in all, I like the spell. Effective battlefield control option for the aspiring illusionist or shadow caster.

It is just an example of a little lack of playtesting/QC by WotC in this book. I hope that there are not too many other poor descriptions.