Slow spell on multiple attacks?

[El Shaddai]

Hi all,
I am wondering what the effects of a slow spell would be on a creature who has multiple attacks per round i.e. claw/claw/bite. Also, since the spell is cummalative, what would happen if 2 slow spells were cast on the same creature?
Thanks in advance for any assistance in this matter.

[Matthew]

The monster would make its full allotment of attacks every other round, as it only has one attack routine. Under two slow spells it either becomes once every three rounds or once every four, not too sure off hand.

[genghisdon]

Or just go with 2 claws one round & 1 bite the next.

I strongly suggest removing the cumulative clause from the spell.

[EOTB]

Or just go with 2 claws one round & 1 bite the next.

True, you could do this, but it doesn't help players understand what an attack routine is, and it nerfs (what to me) is the point of Slow by not limiting the chance of the creature to deal damage (and possibly disrupt spells, etc.) to every other round.

So to me the negatives outweigh the positives.

What do you see as the benefits to those changes, out of curiosity? Would you leave it as a level 3 spell like that?

[TRP]

I strongly suggest removing the cumulative clause from the spell.

Why?

[genghisdon]

Or just go with 2 claws one round & 1 bite the next.

True, you could do this, but it doesn't help players understand what an attack routine is, and it nerfs (what to me) is the point of Slow by not limiting the chance of the creature to deal damage (and possibly disrupt spells, etc.) to every other round.

So to me the negatives outweigh the positives.

What do you see as the benefits to those changes, out of curiosity? Would you leave it as a level 3 spell like that?

I'm of opposite mind. Damage over time will typically be about the same. Not being able to disrupt a spell is silly...instead of slowing down attacks/attackers, Matthew's & your interpretation result in staggered actions, a stop/go which I find too jarring, unrealistic & game-y to even consider without complete distaste. Slow already causes a forfeit of initiative, BTW, so getting a spell off vs a slowed foe often isn't too difficult. If one desires a spell that causes a foe to stand around doing nothing or act normally, I suggest confusion or researching a similar enchantment to it. The "problem" still exists for monsters or NPC's with only 1 attack/round anyway (which is commonplace), but there is nothing to do about that.

Slow is already by far the most powerful combat spell of L3...it would be fine as a L4-6 spell, even with my take on it. Compare it to other non damage attack spells, such as hold person, phantasmal force, suggestion, confusion, charm monster, fire charm, polymorph other, cloudkill, hold monster, death spell, flesh to stone, reverse gravity, charm plants, power word: stun, mass charm, etc. It holds it's own or will often exceed them in many combat situations. As I run it/suggest, BTW.

I've used it as a L3 spell in that fashion for 30+ years & it's still overpoweringly strong.

I strongly suggest removing the cumulative clause from the spell.

Why?

Because it is WAY TOO POTENT. It's already better than the other spells (although things like dispel magic, etc, certainly have value). No saving throw, good AOE, good range, very, very few things are immune to it, halving attacks is a big boon, it inflicts terrible penalties in addition (+4 AC penalty), it forces a loss of initiative.

Stacking it is just plain overkill. Compare it to it's poor cousin haste if you need convincing. Or use it with your NPC baddies & prepare for TPK's. And player revolt.

[TRP]

I strongly suggest removing the cumulative clause from the spell.

Why?

Because it is WAY TOO POTENT. It's already better than the other spells (although things like dispel magic, etc, certainly have value). No saving throw, good AOE, good range, very, very few things are immune to it, halving attacks is a big boon, it inflicts terrible penalties in addition (+4 AC penalty), it forces a loss of initiative.

Stacking it is just plain overkill. Compare it to it's poor cousin haste if you need convincing. Or use it with your NPC baddies & prepare for TPK's. And player revolt.

Another good reason to target spell casters first. Oh, and don't bunch up together. I a group finds itself being herded, then that should be warning enough about all kinds of nasty mischief.

You may as well not allow multiple fireballs. At best save for 1/2 dam, may lose all possessions and great AOE, and that's just from 1 casting.

[genghisdon]

fireball is a powerful attack/damage spell indeed(compare it to higher level damage spells like cone of cold, delayed blast fireball, etc), also L3, yes, but it's not in the same league as slow.

The reasons why it's not include the following:
*fire resistance or immunity is common as dirt, via items, spells & innate abilities
* it can easily harm or kill allies, or even one's one self in common use (that AOE often isn't nice at all).
* item saves are a double edged sword at best; melting your treasure sucks (BTW, I only roll item saves on a failed save, something else I'd recommend).

cast as many as you like; mighty as it is, it's not half the trouble slow can be.

It may be a good idea to take out spell casters first, but that's often easier said than done.

clustering is extremely common in dungeons (or urban settings), an activity that's often part of the game. Not clustering has it's downsides, to boot.