The Corrupted Template can be added to any attack spell. So what's an "attack spell"? Is it a spell that causes damage, or is it basically any targeted non-beneficial spell?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
phindar |
Corrupted Template |
Lead | |
|
The Corrupted Template can be added to any attack spell. So what's an "attack spell"? Is it a spell that causes damage, or is it basically any targeted non-beneficial spell? |
|||
scribble |
|||
|
I let the template be applied to any non-beneficial spell that directly affects its targets (therefor Conjure Energy Creature spells don't count, for
example). If the spell would end an Invisibility effect, then it is valid to Corrupt it.
~scribble~ |
|||
phindar |
|||
|
That's a pretty good way to look at it, although Invisibility is frustratingly vague in some ways. The SRD says, "the spell ends if the
subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe" and then
goes on to mention Bless as an exception because it affects allies. By this definition, Obscuring Mist would be an "attack spell".
|
|||
varianor |
|||
|
Are you trying to damage, hurt or otherwise directly affect someone, as opposed to the environment? That's an attack spell.
Lands of the Jade Oath. Coming soon from Rite Publishing. Beware the Bakemono. |
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
The definition of an attack spell, for purposes of Invisibility, is intentionally extremely broad, to limit the potential for abuse. And, yes, Obscuring Mist
qualifies for this.
If you think that's too broad, then you can define "attack spell" as any spell that: a) Does hit point damage b) Applies a condition directly to a foe (slowed, held, blinded, etc.). The 'directly' qualifier means that spells such as Grease and Sleet Storm don't qualify, but Web does. c) Does ability score damage (temporary or permanent) d) Gives foes negative levels e) Hostile polymorphing Spells that would not qualify: 1. Spells which *remove* a condition or effect, such as Dispel Invis or Dispel Magic Ambiguous situations: A. A spell that applies a penalty to caster level, attack bonus, or damage, but without imposing a condition. Prayer, for example, gives a luck penalty to your foes. B. Enchantment spells, especially Compulsion. They may, or may not, be attack spells. I might allow them to be Corrupted...but doing so might be a bad idea. For example, a Corrupted Charm Person would automatically invoke the +5 bonus to the target's save, because the Wis damage effect is a clear attack. Conversely, I think Corrupted and Fear go together like chocolate and coffee, so I'd allow it. |
|||
phindar |
|||
|
That's pretty much how I would rule it. To be an attack, it has to directly affect somebody. This includes all targeted non-beneficial spells, and
AoE's that have a direct effect. Spells like Ob Mist and Muddy Ground wouldn't qualify; they directly affect the air or the ground,
not creatures. (An exception would be a Muddy Ground cast as an attack vs a Stone Golem, if the GM were to allow such a thing. I would, but
that's the meeting we're having right now.)
|
|||
Sslissth |
|||
|
Or you could be really specific and let it apply only to spells requiring an attack roll (such as rays, the new magic missile, or Mudball)
Personally I go with: 1) Directly does damage, or; 2) Directly causes a creature to make a save, or; 3) The Spell Resistance entry says "Yes" but not "Yes: Harmless" (it seems it must be part of the definition of an attack spell that it cannot be harmless) So though you take penalties to attack (concealment) with Obscuring Mist, it does you no damage and does not cause you to make a save, and so no Corruption. A conjured flaming octopus will rip you a new one, but the damage is not directly caused by the spell, so no Corruption. Advanced Poison increases a poison save but doesn't force a save in and of itself and in reality doesn't even target a creature. Fear, negative levels, magical diseases and poisons, Sorcerous Blast, Web, Invoked Apocalypse, all do damage, cause a save, or can be resisted by SR. In addition, I reserve the right to rule that a spell that doesn't do damage, doesn't force a save and can't be resisted may count as an attack spell (probably depending on the flavour text--a spell that manipulates the environment no, but a spell that forcibly intrudes on a person probably yes). That covers all my bases. As an aside, I homebrewed a bunch of witching sites once. One of the more interesting ones was a site that at certain times would cause any spell cast to gain the Corrupted template whether the caster had the template or not, or even whether the caster *wanted* it. I basically had Corrupted apply to any spell that had either a target or included a creature in its area, so that I could include innocent healing spells as sources of Corruption. I even had it apply to spell-like abilities. In the desert there is no mercy...but I am not in the desert now. |
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Requiring an attack roll would mean that Fireball doesn't apply, so that's rather limited.
Your 3 conditions don't work for me, either. Mechanically, it seems highly likely that one of the three is necessary...but I don't think they're sufficient. For example, Charm Person has a save; is this an attack spell? It's a hostile spell, in that it's doing something which the target would consider undesirable, but it's not clear-cut that every hostile spell should be considered an attack spell. The other issue is, the conditions don't address the concept of "what is an attack spell?" (Other than the first one, of course.) |
|||
phindar |
|||
|
I'm on the side of Charm as an "attack spell" because of the line, "This spell alters someone's mind..." Even though
it doesn't do damage, altering someone's mind against their will seems like it would constitute an attack.
|
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Go for it. As I noted, it's clearly a gray area. BUT, I would impose the interaction I mentioned. If you're trying to charm someone, it doesn't
make a whole lot of sense to try to turn his brain into goo at the same time; it's de facto proof that your intentions are not friendly. It'd be better
on a Dominate-class spell, where there's no BS of "oh, yes, I'm your best buddy"...it's "you are MINE, pitiful worm!" BUT,
again, I'd invoke either a second save, or give the target the self-destructive command bonus (against the Domination, NOT against the Wis damage) because
it's obvious that the caster *will* be a seriously abusive master. You'd be nothing to him but a disposable tool, and if you die in the process, eek.
Or even, perhaps, so much the better to him.
But, that's getting into a related but different aspect. CAN you apply Corrupted to an Enchantment, versus SHOULD you apply Corrupted to a particular spell. |
|||
Sslissth |
|||
|
Tiburon, the condition is sufficient for me because if it was not a hostile action, it would not require a save. To me, that's sufficient to define as an
attack spell. And yes, I would include Charm as an attack spell. If Charm just targeted yourself and gave you a +20 Charisma bonus, then it wouldn't be
an attack spell. It could be used for nefarious purposes, certainly, but it and of itself would not be an attack. However, it targets someone directly,
mucking about with someone's free will which to me definitely constitutes an attack, even if it *merely* makes your target more friendly towards you.
However, I take as my muse page 207 of the AE book: "Special Spell Effects." "Some spells refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks." Granted the last part of the sentence is a trifle vague, but taking the first two conditions and adding SR as another condition is sufficient for me. YMMV. As for the attack roll suggestion, it was merely an option, and as can be seen, not one I would take. I presented it for completeness and possibly devil's-advocateness, not because I recommended it. In the desert there is no mercy...but I am not in the desert now. |
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
The last, and not necessarily obvious, step in your chain is, every spell which creates an attack, is an attack spell. That makes Corrupted incredibly broad,
ESPECIALLY considering it has no application cost. Certainly, to be an attack spell, the spell must qualify as making an attack...but it's not clear to me
that the converse is universally accurate or desirable. It may be, but the philosopher in me wants to clarify the notion of an 'attack spell' on its
own.
Note, too, that it may well be that the Corrupted template should have an addendum instead...that the spell must directly affect the target. This feels right anyway, based on the effect of the template. |
|||