Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Wizard Spells 10-16 Two Page Spread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Graf" data-source="post: 4093230" data-attributes="member: 3087"><p>OK. I'm tracking now.</p><p>Honestly I just assumed that 'attack' in the spell meant 'attack roll vs AC'.</p><p>If you're right (and you probably are) then the wording needs to be changed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think auto success is very loaded here. </p><p>Auto success with resist vs roll to hit for success is semantic.</p><p></p><p>I agree that the attacker is rolling now. But there is still a single target by target roll.</p><p>Who rolls?</p><p>Honestly I don't think it matters.</p><p></p><p></p><p>MM was also never affected by Mirror Image.</p><p>If the magical blast swirls around the square for a second until it hits something solid then it would very much be like a fireball, where the nimbleness of the target in avoiding the moving ball of light is key.</p><p>Without seeing MM it's hard to argue that it "has to be affected by MI".</p><p></p><p></p><p>Do they? </p><p>Or are they like grenades, you throw it into a square, it'll probably hit someone and blow up, but it could miss.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a much better argument. </p><p>I have no defense against it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is the road to that-place-you-don't-want-to-go-right?</p><p></p><p>Otherwise the game gets infinitely complex (i.e. +3 to AC and +3 to Reflex against humanoids depending on sight for their weapon attacks).</p><p></p><p>I assume that they're just sticking everything into AC/Ref/Fort/Will to keep the game from bogging down.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It would.</p><p>I'm assuming the bonuses have been play tested and +6 to AC is as high as they want to go.</p><p>Generically speaking I'd assume that you'd have +3/2/1 if it was vs both Ref and AC.</p><p></p><p>Which is less dramatic/more fiddly. +6 is a big deal, even +4 is. </p><p>+3? not so much.</p><p></p><p>There is probably some other power that adds to both reflex and AC like <em>blur</em>, no?</p><p></p><p>At any rate I have a much better idea about why people dislike the spell.</p><p>I was thinking the complaints were broader; how it was explained or what have you (as opposed to just wanting it to be more powerful/versatile).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Graf, post: 4093230, member: 3087"] OK. I'm tracking now. Honestly I just assumed that 'attack' in the spell meant 'attack roll vs AC'. If you're right (and you probably are) then the wording needs to be changed. I think auto success is very loaded here. Auto success with resist vs roll to hit for success is semantic. I agree that the attacker is rolling now. But there is still a single target by target roll. Who rolls? Honestly I don't think it matters. MM was also never affected by Mirror Image. If the magical blast swirls around the square for a second until it hits something solid then it would very much be like a fireball, where the nimbleness of the target in avoiding the moving ball of light is key. Without seeing MM it's hard to argue that it "has to be affected by MI". Do they? Or are they like grenades, you throw it into a square, it'll probably hit someone and blow up, but it could miss. This is a much better argument. I have no defense against it. This is the road to that-place-you-don't-want-to-go-right? Otherwise the game gets infinitely complex (i.e. +3 to AC and +3 to Reflex against humanoids depending on sight for their weapon attacks). I assume that they're just sticking everything into AC/Ref/Fort/Will to keep the game from bogging down. It would. I'm assuming the bonuses have been play tested and +6 to AC is as high as they want to go. Generically speaking I'd assume that you'd have +3/2/1 if it was vs both Ref and AC. Which is less dramatic/more fiddly. +6 is a big deal, even +4 is. +3? not so much. There is probably some other power that adds to both reflex and AC like [I]blur[/I], no? At any rate I have a much better idea about why people dislike the spell. I was thinking the complaints were broader; how it was explained or what have you (as opposed to just wanting it to be more powerful/versatile). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Wizard Spells 10-16 Two Page Spread
Top