Str of Kadun, too powerful?

[James McMurray]

My problem was that it stacked with the original shield spell

Only because the original shield spell was a porrly done conversion of an old idea. It won't stack with the new shield spell, which is definitely good.

 

[Darklone]

Only because the original shield spell was a porrly done conversion of an old idea. It won't stack with the new shield spell, which is definitely good.

Yeah, but that old spell is definitely stronger than the new spell, which is definitely broken

Are you sure it was +1/(2 levels)?
And fire damage 1d6 is a lot against many small animals. Direrats

 

[James McMurray]

Yeah, but that old spell is definitely stronger than the new spell, which is definitely broken

Are you sure it was +1/(2 levels)?
And fire damage 1d6 is a lot against many small animals. Direrats

Blazing Shield is stronger than Shield, but its also a level higher and you have to be higher level to get the most out of it (assuming I'm right about the formula). I'm not positive. And I'm not at home, so I can't check.

Small animals generally won't take the damage though, they're smart enough not to attack a fire.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Persistant Divine Power is great for the cleric, but doesn't do squat for the rest of the party.

However, persistent DP lasts all day, meaning the cleric doesn't have to waste an action to use it in combat and can instead, say, heal party members or call down mighty smackdown on opponents, which he could NOT do if having to cast SoK on the party fighter. From an opportunity cost perspective, persistent DP in fact DOES "do [more than] squat" for the party.

The fist is also great, but you have to have the right domain in order to use it as a cleric.

Yes, the Strength domain, which coincidentally is the same domain to which SoK belongs. But yes, it's also a cleric spell, so fair enough.

An the Strength of Kadum can do muuuch more damage when it gives the party fighter +10-20 to damage (using power attack) on several attacks per round.

Probably not +10-20 damage, since the fighter almost certainly has a +6 Strength item by this point. So it's +7-+14, in reality. Moreover, you waste the fighter's first round of full attacks by casting this on him, since he'll need to wait for you to touch him and then maybe take a move action to close with the enemy. So the spell really only starts being useful in the second round. You've sacrificed, say, 15d8 damage to multiple foes (from a horrid wilting) or two people's full-round attacks (those of you the cleric using persistent DP and the fighter's own attacks) in order to give the fighter 44 extra hp of damage potential per round that takes effect only in round 2. I'd say that's a fair tradeoff, and maybe even weak. I'd prefer the alternative of dropping a +10 Strength bonus on the fighter at the beginning of the day (using a multiple-Empowered bull's strength) and having everyone free to take full actions at the beginning of combat. As I said, the situation changes in 3.5. In 3.5, I'd either get rid of SoK, make it a round +10 enhancement bonus and ditch the component requirement, or drop the duration to 1 round/level.

 

[James McMurray]

That's assuming you don't go before the fighter, ot that he doesn't delay to let you cast before he moves up. Even if he does move up, he doesn't have to change his strategy, you just walk up behind him and cast.

Yeah, in 3.0 you can always triple empower instead of using SoK, but even then you're likely to give about the same strength bonus, just for longer. Like I said, the spell is great (IMO) so long as you make divine casters use the component too.

 

[Darklone]

Ack, Persistent Spell... Please don't use a broken feat to sanctify a broken spell

 

[ruleslawyer]

That's why I provided numerous other examples of "opportunity cost" strategies, Darklone. And why don't you actually make an argument as to SoK being "broken" before tossing around that word so casually?

James: As I said, the point is that "longer" makes all the difference. Moreover, walking up behind the fighter (i.e. into melee combat) is a rather sucky thing for even a cleric to have to do. I do, however, agree that if wizards need to use the component for SoK, then so should clerics.

 

[James McMurray]

Usually walking up behind a fighter doesn't put you into melee combat. It will put you to where your foe can 5' step or full move and attack you next round, but that's assuming that the fighter doesn't use his newfound +20 bonus to strength to crush the enemy first.

 

[Darklone]

Blazing Shield is stronger than Shield, but its also a level higher and you have to be higher level to get the most out of it (assuming I'm right about the formula). I'm not positive. And I'm not at home, so I can't check.

Small animals generally won't take the damage though, they're smart enough not to attack a fire.

You were right about the formula and spell level...

Together with the new shield spell, I even might think about it.