Immediate actions do seem to muddy the waters a bit. I think that they're a special situation if they're cast when it isn't your turn since you're effectively using an action from your next turn, which might be part of the next round. Would it be fair to say that means you count as casting the spell the next round? I think so.
You don't lose anything for casting an immediate spell instead of a swift one on your turn, nor can you cast an extra spell on your turn by borrowing the next turn's swift action.
What you can do, however, is wait for your turn to end, then immediately cast an immediate action spell before anyone else goes. At that point, your turn is already over (i.e. you can't do it then take other actions), and you're giving up your next turn's swift action, (as well as any other immediate actions you could have taken) but you're almost casting an extra spell during your turn.
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Likewise with me. I'm following, but I think that without another dev post to give some direction, we're just spinning our wheels.
James Risner wrote:
I think this is the root of the problem. You're trying to create something on the level of the PDT redesign. Everyone else took one look at the redesign, said "That is a horrible, horrible idea on par with dropping rogues to 1/2 BAB because they can get sneak attack on every hit. Lets ignore it and build something that might actually be worth using." (Exaggeration mine)
So long as you're trying to create something on par with what everyone else considers a worthless ability, your suggested modifications will be considered worthless abilities and you'll think everything else is overpowered.
I'm in the camp of "Make something that people will want to use." If an archetype as a whole is not stronger in some way than the base class, then there's no point to taking it. "In some way" can be very narrowly defined ("I'm better at shields.", "I'm a barbarian with an animal companion"), but it has to exist. No one uses the Two Weapon Warrior archetype if they plan on being a greatsword fighter - they'd be giving up abilities which help them in exchange for ones they'd never use. Likewise the Sound Striker Bard has to do something that will make people consider taking it, or no one will. If that something is "higher damage with limited usage", that's valid. If that something is "useful effects", that's valid. If that something is "I can be less effective using my powers than if I don't", then that's not.
Both Are and thenobledrake are right, but it's worth pointing out that the action isn't "wasted" the first time you choose not to follow through on it. It's still considered ready until you take it or your next turn. So you can ready to shoot someone casting a spell, but wait for the second or third person to do so... if they do.
A companion spell placed on another creature must be a spell from you, not from the creature, and affects that creature when triggered.
I think this means that it counts as you casting the spell on that creature. So personal spells would still be illegal, since you can't do that.
However, I could also see it just being a restriction that you need to cast the spell, not allow someone else to do so.
At this point, I feel most view points have been expressed and the conversation is slowly dwindling while we wait for something official from the PDT.
It'd be nice if the PDT could comment on which abilities they like best, from a designer standpoint, so we could narrow it down and discuss those proposals and what they like and don't like about each one.
Agreed. We need guidance of some sort - are we going down a reasonable track? Too strong? Too weak? Some of the other random plans have appeal?
You may have the divine half of the damage affect only one specific creature type (as the bane weapon quality).
Yeah, it's really weird wording. I think the idea is to compare it to weapons where the bane damage doesn't help against the wrong type of creature. So you select a creature type that's valid for bane, and only that type takes the holy damage.
I think Tels' "just like scorching ray" version is the best I've seen so far, mine included. I like mine better (although I never followed up on it), but I think his is simpler and more useful. If we were voting, I'd vote for it.
That being said, let me throw another random idea out there to see if it sticks:
Number of sounds per day equal to bardic music rounds (but tracked separately).
So when you got it at 6th level, you'd have 17-20 sounds (Cha 16-22) per day, in increments of up-to-six. If you went with damage equal to Cha mod, that'd be 3-6 damage per sound. 18-36 damage per round if you used it full-blast, which you'd only be able to do twice a day (with 5-8 sounds left over) due to the interrelatedness of the formulas involved. Up to 120 damage over the course of a whole day, doled out in little 6-damage packages.
At 12th level, with a Cha range of 16-26, you'd have 29-34 sounds, in increments of up-to-twelve, for 3-8 damage per sound. You'd again only be able to use it at full strength twice a day (with 5-10 spare sounds), but you'd do 36-96 damage when you did. That's comparable to a chain lightning spell from a similarly leveled wizard, but much more flexible.
Lets say it tops out at 20th level with a Cha of 30. 52 sounds per day, 10 damage per sound, unleashing up to 20 sounds at once. That's comparable to Wail of the Banshee for raw damage against a single target, but Wail is an AoE. The bard still can't do that more than twice a day (without some Extra Performance feats), but he can also dole it out in smaller amounts. Maybe only 50 damage this turn, using 5 sounds, then 150 the next, then a full 200, for a total usage of 40/52 sounds.
It wouldn't matter too much to the power level this version of the ability if it were a ranged touch attack or a Fort save. My preference would be Fort save for half, vs total damage dealt to you by all the sounds of each use. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether it's single target or multi-target, provided you have the option to direct it all against one foe. In that, it's just like the aformentioned scorching ray (or magic missile) which can but does not have to be split.
There's also a greatly reduced amount of dice rolling, especially if going with the constant-damage-per-sound option. At most, one touch attack or one save per target, which is similar to how most spells would do it.
Finally, it's up to the bard whether it's a really strong but limited-use ability, or a more common but weaker one, which suits the flexibility of bards as a group. In both cases, it's strong enough to be worth a standard action. It might be feasible to allow a bard to use a small subset swifter (something like: one sound as a swift action, or 2+ as a standard; or one sound per 6 levels as swift, one per 4 levels as a move, and more than that as a standard)
If people like this, it makes an interesting contrast to the scorching ray option. That one is "just like the spell, except..." and this would be written nothing like spells, put produces a similar end. I'll try to write it up as an actual ability in the morning, when I'm not so tired. Or maybe over the weekend...
Dotting for interest and to reply to a comment on the interest-check thread:
Neil Mansell wrote:
Raging without a con score isn't impressive, but ending rage without the ability to become fatigued is huge. Once-per-rage powers become once-per round (or once-per-every-other if the GM require you to start and end rage on different rounds).
I do think your ability is the way to go. But I would drop the 1 round per missile and maybe add a static damage bonus of +1 per 4 bard levels, to each missile. My biggest concern is that Sound Striker would be the go-to combat bard. An archer/Sound Striker bard would be a terrifying foe, full attacking and blasting people all in the same round.
This seems rather contradictory - you're worried about making the Sound Striker the go-to combat bard, yet you're also suggesting making the ability much more powerful than I was thinking. I do like the idea of adding a small scaling bonus, but don't want to make it too strong. I admit I haven't tried comparing it at high levels - just the 9th level I originally posted about. I'll figure out what it looks like after scaling and see if there's room for tweaking it.
Swift action results in this ability scaling too well into the late game. Comparing it to quickened magic missiles is not very fair, since quickening a magic missile gives up using a spell of FOUR levels higher to do so. Making this a swift action? It still only costs 1 round of bardic performance - That's too much benefit for the cost and I'm firmly against that idea.
Please re-read my idea before you reject it. I specifically made it one round per missile so that it was comparable to a quickened magic missile in resource usage.
I'm just going to again propose making it a swift action. It can be far less powerful as a swift action than as a standard, and still be worth using.
9th level is when a Wizard first becomes able to cast Quickened Magic Missile, so we can use that as a comparison instead of archery.
QMM at 9th level is a swift action which deals 5d4+5 damage (average: 17.5) and requires a significant expenditure of resources 5/34ths of the spell slots the wizard has available (before bonus spells from high stat, and ignoring the fact they can't redivide their slots). That's around 15% of their spellcasting for the day, to deal around twice their level in damage, with no save, no attack roll, and very little that can resist force damage.
The equivalent for the 9th level Sound Striker bard would be 3-4 rounds (out of their 22 base rounds) to deal around 18 damage - the average of 4d8. We could bump up the power by adding a save or an attack roll, or bump it down slightly by making it sonic instead of force. Lets call it 4 rounds and no-save-no-attack sonic damage.
So based on that, here's what I have:
They'd only be able to use it at full strength once or twice a day, which is similar to the slots an equivalent wizard would have for QMM. But unlike the wizard, the bard can split it up into smaller units. And because it's a swift action, it allows the bard to attack normally (although without Arcane Strike if they have that feat).
That should be:
First of all, thanks to the design team for the New FAQ Sticky!
Two pieces of feedback that I hope someone can edit:
1) The link to the FAQ goes to an invalid URL which is not visible externally.
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Either the APG or Ultimate Combat specifically listed three new feats as bonus feats monks can take. They are Ki Diversity (any level), Ki Throw (level 10), and Improved Ki Throw (level 14). No other additions or errata, as far as I know. Something to remember is that monks don't have to meet ANY of the prereqs for those feats listed. Everything introduced at levels 6 and 10 are also at least nice to have, if not downright great. So, they're not necessarily missing out on THAT much with this class feature.
Also, Binding Throw (Ultimate Combat) at 14th.
And as to negative responses to the FAQ by gamers who seemingly were also demanding more FAQ updates is gamers being gamers--we are not a hive mind, we are a very large, very diverse group of people with extremely strong, passionate, and differing opinions on all things gaming and who often outright adamantly refuse to agree to disagree. Whatever you do in RPGs is going to please some and piss off others and the different groups will become vocal at different times. Frankly, I am amazed at anyone who becomes a professional game designer because they are signing up for interacting for an utterly impossible to please or get along with groups. I am proud of being a gamer, but at the same time I accept the fact that by default, most gamers on the Internet are jerks. And because of that, no, we are never in fact going to get our house in order. Sorry, but that's the end of the story.
As much as DeathQuaker is right about gamers being diverse, I entirely agree with her on this. More PDT posts! More FAQ visibility! More personal insights and thoughts from developers directly!
I can actually see some weird corner cases with this logic.
I cast a cure spell and am holding the charge. My "Ally" moves up to me, then away, provoking an AoO. I attempt to attack him with my held spell (which is a threatening weapon, so I can). I make my attack roll - oops, I just healed my "enemy" on his turn.
The Question is; Can the feat Natural Spell be expanded to include supernatural abilities?
The answer is: Yes, as a house rule.
You're basically asking the equivalent of "Can Weapon Specialization be expanded to anyone with BAB +4, instead of just 4th level Fighters?" It's not an unreasonable change to make, but it's never going to be official.
Goth Guru wrote:
Is there a pinned topic somewhere that explains what Frequently asked questions are not allowed to be suggested as official Frequently asked questions? Is it only suggested rules changes that are affected?
No, and suggested changes in-and-of-themselves are not out of scope for it. They just have to be included with a question or unclear wording and be a suggestion to clarify, rather than a petition to change already-clear wording.
Good example: "This ability is only useful if you can take two standard actions in a single turn, which is almost impossible. It should be fixed so that you can do it as a move action so you can combine it with ...."
Bad example: "This ability works just fine, but I'd like it changed to only take a move action."
That being said, having a sticky with guidelines would probably be useful.
That would make sense, but it's explicitly not what they said.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
If you provoked by taking a move action to move through the opponent's threatened area, you could finish that move action but could not also take a standard action after it. If you provoked as part of a full attack (as with the trip example), becoming staggered would end your full attack at that point and prevent you from taking a move action after the staggering attack.
Why would you be able to complete a move, but have to stop in the middle of a full attack? I'd think you'd have to stop moving right there.
Ok. I can understand where you're coming from now. I entirely disagree, but I understand it.
I really don't see how you can possibly read that into his quote. It's two sentences. Neither one mentions using a double weapon as a double weapon.
You cannot normally use a double weapon in one hand unless it is sized smaller than you.
Normally you can't wield a double weapon in one hand. It's a two handed weapon and you can't wield two handed weapons on one hand. If the weapon is smaller, you can wield it in one hand. Thus, you can't normally use a double weapon in one hand unless it is smaller.
If he said "You can't use a double weapon normally in one hand unless it is smaller", then there would be ambiguity there. If he said "You can't normally use both sides of a double weapon in one hand unless it is smaller", then you'd have a clear answer. But he said neither of those things. He very clearly is talking about wielding at all.
That being said, if you want to read extra words into his off-hand, unofficial clarification of a feat, then I can't stop you.
No, he's not. You have to look at what the "feat" he's mentioning there is. That feat is Quarterstaff Master
Quarterstaff Master wrote:
By employing a number of different stances and techniques, you can wield a quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon. At the start of your turn, you decide whether or not you are going to wield the quarterstaff as a one-handed or two-handed weapon. When you wield it as a one-handed weapon, your other hand is free, and you cannot use the staff as a double weapon. You can take the feat Weapon Specialization in the quarterstaff even if you have no levels in fighter.
So, lets review, in chronological order.
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Quarterstaff Master wrote:
... you can wield a quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon. At the start of your turn, you decide whether or not you are going to wield the quarterstaff as a one-handed or two-handed weapon. When you wield it as a one-handed weapon, your other hand is free, and you cannot use the staff as a double weapon.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
You cannot normally use a double weapon in one hand unless it is sized smaller than you. This feat allows you to get around that restriction.
PRD says "If you have it in one hand, you can't use it as a double weapon." It also says "If it's smaller than you, you can wield it in one hand." All double weapons described start as two handed weapons.
The feat lets you wield a quarterstaff in one hand (normally it requires two). It expressly tells you that you don't get to use it as a double weapon, but it didn't have to because it was already forbidden. However, because it's an easily overlooked rule, they reiterated it with instructions on how to switch.
Then there was debate over whether you could wield a double weapon with one hand at all. Jason came along to say you can't, unless it's smaller. Or you have this feat and are using a quarterstaff.
Thus, there's still no way to use a double weapon as a double weapon in one hand.
Here's a thought:
Keep it as proposed (or possibly even scale it back slightly), but convert it to a swift action.
This does affect the action economy of the bard (replacing a standard action with a swift), but it is a significant power boost, without being an oddly scaling damage boost.
Possibly, restrict it to being something you can only do while you're already maintaining a bardic performance. Something like Chord of Shards, which is a very similarly-themed ability. Also along the lines of the suggestion it replaces, which has to be done during an ongoing fascination.
It's also worth noting that the Wordstrike power is described as a standard action, but Wierd Words is described as "starting a performance" But it's only an instant effect (as written and as revised), so there's no ongoing performance to start...
Quoting for reference wrote:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
Morphling - I just want to point out that by your interpretation, it's impossible to spellcraft any spell with no visible effects. I can see someone waving their hands around, but I can't see the detect thoughts itself, so I can't see it. Nothing in there says you need to be able to see the caster as the spell is being cast, only the spell.
Conversely, the spell has no visible effects until after it's cast, because there is no spell effect until the casting is successful. (Unless you add some flavor-based effects in, anyway.) Thus it's impossible to see any spell as it is being cast. And since you can't see it, you can't identify it at all.
Alternatively, "as it is being cast" could refer to seeing the caster, not the spell. In which case, there's no difference between spells with visible effects and those with no visible effects - you can still see the caster just fine.
Even without going to that extent, it's still possible the GM would make you say what expensive components you're buying ahead of time, since those do cost something. Many of them are multi-purpose, I think, but if you don't have them, no one's going to sell them to you mid-dungeon.
Unfortunately true. I suggest making one of those "All FAQ here" threads to push for official errata.
Try thinking of it this way:
When you become staggered, you're limited to one action. There are three possible scenarios:
1) You haven't acted yet. You get one action. (0 < 1)
The fact that you became limited after you've taken the actions doesn't mean they didn't happen. You just don't have any left to use.
Yeah... Even if every one of the 237 posts on this thread were someone saying "Yay ignore script!", that's still less than the total number of people who have some avatars. I for one would never ignore anyone. I even expand the auto-hidden posts on some other forums, just because I hate reading responses to posts I didn't read.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Good example. That's exactly how I thought of it, but I don't think I would have thought of that example.