What does this contribute to the discussion? I can just as easily say
"Have fun playing Mother-May-I?
I like Pathfinder."
If you don't agree with the poster's argument, then address it. Don't just throw tautologies and invective around. I understand from your posting that you believe the math part of the game to be relatively minor, and I'm interested in your reasons why.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I was trying to stick to the Pathfinder structure as much as possible, even though it seemed fairly illogical, because I didn't want to reprint all the other rules and end up with something even more unmanageable than the monstrosity I produced!
Yeah, I could see that. It's kind of funny, because the layout within certain sections is fairly orderly and logical, but the overall structure isn't. It was one of the reasons I guessed that you were following the Pathfinder structure.
I appreciated the Avionia info near the starting, it was a good way to get a light introduction to some of the new rules, and is fairly well written. It does a good job of pointing out minor differences like the civilized and uncivilized subtypes.
Gotcha. Which brings me back to my original comment, that the organization (and that of Pathfinder, which appears to be what you copied the general structure from) is really not all that logical. Still works for a set of houserules. Thanks for the quick response.
Reading through the pdf, I've noticed multiple references to the Concentration skill, however, I haven't found anywhere in the rules that mention how this skill works, or even that it is being brought back. It might be in the later pages, but a rule change like that should probably be up in the front of the book before it gets mentioned in racial and class write ups.
Unless I'm mistaken it appears that this ability is saying that the bonus spell has to be inscribed in the bonded spellbook and not another spellbook. The example of a spellbook looted off a corpse, would be a second spellbook of the wizard in question, just a different source. As you said, it's a limitation to one personal spellbook, which is the usual issue of putting all your eggs in one basket. Fine if your GM doesn't target it, but a potential weakness if you do (see bonded object).
Saying it has little to no effect on gameplay is like saying the Arcane Bond object drawbacks have little to no effect on gameplay. Only if your GM is limiting his targets.
Whoever they've gotten to do their bestiary has done an incredible job. I haven't spotted a creature that feels like filler yet, and this is across pretty much all the Cerulean Seas books. Having one or two creatures at the high level of quality is impressive, but going that many books without an obvious dud is almost unheard of.
What'd be cool is a class modeled after Ms. Brea's abilities and other abilities shown to be possible in the first game. I really liked how the ability set was mostly not just a magical system (see the elemental system from the second game), but also kept thematically appropriate for the story.
I've had a chance to start looking at this, and as always with Cerulean Seas products, I'm liking what I see. A few thoughts as I go through:
More when I have time to read further.
Craig Frankum wrote:
I knew there was something I was forgetting. My reasoning back when I first looked at this, was since monks could take this without having the still mind feature, and only lost the feature when they would otherwise gain the feature, then it would follow that since there was a statement that other classes could take it, a similar process would be true for those classes as well. On reflection, there's lots of ambiguity here, and you'd need to check with your individual GM. It'd be interesting to hear how this works in Pathfinder Society.
I saw this over on Endzeitgeist.com and was impressed with the product from your review. The first three focused schools in particular seemed inspired and did things that in hindsight seemed obvious things to do.
I'm confused now. At no point have I been making a "GM please let this fly argument". It's always been a "look at this mechanical oddity of how the rules have been written" and a "be careful with this, since things don't appear to be internally consistent". Your follow-up statements appear to agree with this.
My big questions have always centered around how do we figure out in a manner that works consistently whether normal spells from the core rulebook, or spells built on the fly using the Words of Power system what is the duration and persistence of the effects? That's all I am asking. One method that I can apply equally when reading the text that works for both, or some sort of clarification, backed up by the written rules showing an exception for Words of Power.
Your statements about Inference seem to be saying "As a GM, it would be silly if the rules worked as they have been explicitly written, so I'm guessing they were meant to work in an alternate way". And I agree, that it's a reasonable GM interpretation. The wrench is, that looking at the rules logically in the build-your-own spells part of Words of Power, you end up having the instantaneous duration cause lasting effects some of the time, but not in others, and there is no real reason on a mechanical level for them to be interpreted differently. You can make some rulings as to how you are going to interpret things, but then you get corner cases like being unable to reproduce things like Metal to Wood, Flesh to Stone, Awaken, Wall of Stone and a number of other iconic spells from the core rulebook. Or, you end up with complete craziness of an whole whack of additional persistent effects.
You'll notice I've never been trying to argue RAI, just pointing out a funny quirk of the RAW.
I had a big response to this, but the boards ate it and stopped showing it some time after it appeared to post.
To your first assertion, that enhancement bonuses cannot be persistent because they are inherently magical, I'd like to point you to Masterwork Weapons which have an enhancement bonus that is persistent and non-magical.
To your second assertion, I'd suggest looking at the flavour text of spells like Bull's Strength "The subject becomes stronger." or Resist Energy "This abjuration grants a creature limited protection from damage of whichever one of five energy types you select: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic.". Both of these then go on to describe their mechanical effects. Compare this to Awaken "You awaken a tree or animal to human-like sentience."
None of these spells talk about persistence or duration in their spell descriptions. The information is all included in the spell header on the Duration line. My question to you, is if duration is not a mechanical property of the spell, and the properties of the spell are given in the spell description, then why do none of these spells mention persistence, duration of effect or anything related to that matter in their spell descriptions?
I look forward to your response with rules citations. I'd be happy to be proven wrong due to having overlooked some sort of rule I was unfamiliar with. I started playing 3.x with PFRPG and only played a bit of 1e and a smattering of 2e beforehand, so I'm coming at this somewhat fresh and often miss things in the rules.
But if I cast an instantaneous enhancement buff (transmutation most likely), can't I just as easily argue that the spell makes an alteration to the creature's physique that leaves it with increased strength (tougher muscle fibers, more muscles for strength; stronger bones and a boost to the general haleness due to an exercise-like effect for increased constitution, etc) with a persistent consequence? The thing about the words of power system, is it mostly just describes the mechanical effects, leaving the flavour of how they are implemented up to the player/GM. If you are arguing a flavour reason for why some instantaneous durations are different than others, then in a system where there aren't many flavour explanations given you are going to run into problems like this.
I mean, can't I just as easily say that a Healing effect Word + Change Effect word causes a persistent change to the target's body leaving it with an altered physique. The magic has come and gone and wrought persistent changes, but does not need to stay to grant any of the alterations. In other words, congratulations, you now have a claw and it is actually part of your body. This isn't an unheard of trope in fantasy literature, where magic is capable of causing all sorts of strange mutations that persist after the magic is gone.
I guess what my question is, is how do we know how duration is handled works differently between Words of Power and normal Vanacian spellcasting?
Duration doesn't change what spells ... how lasting their effects are.
Then what does Duration do? Why include it?
Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd provide a rules cite for why enhancement effects cannot be made permanent.
It sounds like what you are saying is that the Duration given in the spell header is not what you should be paying attention to for figuring out a spell's duration. The thing is, with the Words of Power system, there's no other way of figuring out a spell's duration and the rule you've suggested above isn't included in either the core rulebook or in Ultimate Magic with the Words of Power system.
How does awaken work? How does energy drain work? How does Wall of Stone work? All are instantaneous, but have long lasting effects that include buffs or debuffs (increase to intelligence or extra negative levels). Energy drain has a secondary system of temporary negative levels having a chance to become permanent after 24 hours, but being an instantaneous effect, the temporary negative levels (a debuff) can't be removed with a dispel magic.
Regardless, of the timing arguments, I'm glad to hear you've got a system that works. I was actually pretty excited about the Words of Power system when it was first announced, but ended up being pretty disappointed with the mechanical implementation.
Enhancement bonuses don't cause permanent effects.
That would explain why I was getting confused before. Do you have a rules cite for that so I can check it out and make sure I understand how it interacts with other rules?
It still leaves an issue for things like Selected Soaring Lesser Cure
This is behaving a bit more like awaken, energy drain, stone to flesh, or Transmute Metal to Wood in that it is causing a permanent change in capability or nature in an instant and is not dispellable like PERMANENT effects normally are.
Another one that is kinda cool
I guess my message here, is that if you are going to play around with the Words of Power system and you have any players that like to get clever or inventful with the system, the GM is going to have to nail down some fairly strict guidelines as to what will be allowed and what won't. I'm sure there's some other problems with the system, but I stopped looking. Endzeitgeist had a similar reaction here.
Okay. I offered those spells from the Core Rulebook to show how some non-damaging/non-healing spells can interact with the instantaneous duration.
Words of Power lets me do something like this:
Enhance Form (1 round/level) + Moderate Cure (instantaneous)
For a permanent, non-dispellable
One-time cure of 1d6 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5).
This is available to an Alchemist for a 4th level spell slot. I'm sure that one could find other fun combinations. This would let the Alchemist to quickly get at +4 enhancement bonus to their Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution after 3 castings.
Last time this was raised I got called a bunch of names by people who insisted that it didn't work this way because.
Link to the thread. Feel free to look through the arguments on both sides, and if you spot any sort of reason why I might be wrong about the RAW I'd love to hear the reasoning why.
And yes, this is mostly a sidetrack to the main topic of this thread, so feel free to just ignore this sidetrack, since I doubt most GMs would let this fly in their games.
Words of Power Rules wrote:
Multiple Effect Words and Duration: If a wordspell has more than one effect word, the shortest of all the effect words' durations is used for all of the effect words.
Core Rulebook on Magic wrote:
Basically, the rules on spell duration interacts in a way that may not have been intended to hilarious results, or the way the Words of Power system works is inconsistent with the way spell timing works in the core rules, or elsewhere in the Words of Power system.
Examples of how spell timing can work in the core rules:
Example 2:Transmute Metal to Wood
You've also got all sorts of damaging spells heal spells, cure spells, and other spells like contagion with instantaneous duration but long-lasting effects.
So, for the words of power system, to bestow a long-lasting effect with an instantaneous duration, you combine a damaging spell effect or healing spell effect with a debuffing or buffing effect. If you go and day "this is all stupid, it can't work this way", you can do it, but then it becomes more of a game of "mother, may I?" for replicating non healing/non damaging effects (which typically get a pass) like the Stone to X, Wall of Z, or other more complex spells from the Core Rulebook.
Something you can also consider a balancing effect of the Words of Power system, is how it makes MAD classes much less so, and makes characters much less gear dependent. If you are GMing with the system, you'll probably want to put some sort of cost in, but if you run it RAW you can have all sorts of hilarious effects.
As the person, who I believe coined the term Schrodinger's Wizard on these forums, Ciretose's summary is correct. The high level paranoid wizard is pretty cool, and you can get closer with heavy use of scrolls, but there are always opportunity costs, action costs, and missing pieces of information that prevent the wizard from utilizing a perfect answer to every situation.
As far as the naming goes, Chan-ona isn't that bad in pseudo-Japanese, although its actually closer to a pseudo Chinese name than pseudo Japanese. The suffix chan would be probelmatic, but as the prefix it's not going to cause any big problems. Ona isn't all that bad either since there are many different possible ways to write it in Japanese, and Mikan isn't actually Japan so you have some leeway in naming. Still, it's a good idea to keep in mind what names might mean in other languages. I seem to remember a couple Paizo NPCs having rather hilarious names in other languages and it is always a good idea to try to at least google a name.
Yes to the second part. By sparingly, I mean not making this a common thing, otherwise it ends up becoming normal. Unless you like that type of game (See Amethyst Renaissance for a pretty cool take on this). One of the fun parts of playing this type of character is the fish-out-of-water antics you can get up to.
Also, use the SGG gun rules, not the Paizo gun rules, as the Paizo gun rules will cause all sorts of problems, and the SGG gun rules, especially for the enforcer end up being a lot more balanced. There's some good stuff on how to handle the different technology levels in the Enforcer pdf, and the GM should probably take a look at it to help avoid some easy pitfalls.
For discussion purposes:
Since time does not pass within the space, then I'd say it is pretty clear that the 6 hour duration is from outside the shelter.
John Kretzer wrote:
Planar Shepard (Prestige Class, I know)
So, I've had a chance to look this over, and in my opinion it is one of the best put together house rule documents I've ever seen. The consolidation of similar mechanics is a very good move and the various rock/paper/scissors balancing seems to work out very well. If you were to do a more formal publishing of these rules, you'd want to do some serious re-organization of the document and add the various rules that you allude to in the main system and that have not been included in this document. Also, bookmarks would be needed as well with the length of the volume.
I look forward to trying these rules out if I can convince my group to give them a shot.
1) Tagging the backlog is something I'm hoping for, as there's a number of older reviews I'd like to look up, but haven't been able to find. I'm not sure if it is because they lack tags, or if they aren't on the site (e.g. the original Cerulean Seas). Tags I find useful are the seal of approval, publisher name, author name, product name. Other tags like class, feats, spells, settings, etc. are also very useful.
2) I enjoy seeing you review whatever you choose to review. One of the big benefits of your reviews is that you look at things that many others would pass over, and its a great way of finding hidden gems.
3) Facebook: don't use it, don't care.
4) I've clicked on links. Something that may help, is to put a message in the comments section on the product thread on paizo.com saying that you've reviewed the item: link here, and that the review will be going up on paizo within X days.
5) Endzeitgeist.com and paizo.com. D20pfsrd.com reviews are blocked by some work filters for whatever reason.
Going through Endzeitgeist's Seal of Approval list on Endzeitgeist.com (I know there's actually quite a few missing), I've come up with the following classes:
Swordmaster by Dreadfox Games
I feel bad for not getting In the Company of Kappa onto the site, but after a huge amount of updates lasts fall, I burnt out somewhat and have been taking a break. I don't know how John manages to keep on updating the site on a day-to-day basis, and I really respect and admire his work and persistence.
Actually, I think the Death Mage is a Super Genius Games product, and is completely open content.
This is very cool. Thanks for getting this up on the site, and thank you very much Radiance House for making this available. I hope lots of people take a look and pick up the Pact Magic books.
Marc Radle wrote:
Wasn't that a closed content class, or am I getting it confused with another of the Kobald Press Expanded classes?
You might want to take another look at my earlier post to see what was actually being communicated (hint, there was no question being asked).
What happens to character's loads/the weight of what they are carrying when using item kits should be adjudicated by the GM as there is no method to do so following the rules. Alternatively, the GM should just not use the encumbrance rules.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
What about class features and other game mechanics that depend on a light/medium/heavy load?
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote: