paizo.com Favorited Posts by Fozzy Hammerpaizo.com Favorited Posts by Fozzy Hammer2012-08-22T15:40:49Z2012-08-22T15:40:49ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: Masterwork Transformation legal for PFS play?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mtiz&page=2?Masterwork-Transformation-legal-for-PFS-play#562011-09-12T19:52:28Z2011-09-12T18:16:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I'm going to have to refer you to the rules forums for this if you don't understand how healing works Chris.</p>
<p>And you are also putting words in my mouth. I said that None of the NPCs cast prohibited spells in scenarios. Cure spells aren"t prohibited.</p>
<p>And I also know that you understand that. I can understand that prople want Masterwork Transformation made legal. I can respect that.</p>
<p>And I know that I'm going to get blaster for this, but come on Chris, you know Pathfinder rules better than this. It's not like Cure spells have had a lot of changes since 3.0.</p>
<p>Sorry that might sound condescending, but there has to be a better way of making a persuasive argument than misinterpreting the main rule set. </blockquote><p>I don't believe that Chris is misrepresenting the main rule set. He is making an accurate representation of the HOUSE RULES that Pathfinder Society uses. The House Rules are inconsistent, and inconsistently applied.
<p>It would be my hope that by pointing out these inconsistencies, future revisions of the rules might be better written, and the game itself would improve.</p>
<p>Personally, I don't care whether MT is made legal or not. The fact that it isn't makes any argument about it moot. The tangential argument, that the house rule proclaiming that instant effect are reversed at end-of-scenario is far more important to me, as it's a gaping hole in the rule set that should be corrected in future revisions of the rules.</p>Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:I'm going to have to refer you to the rules forums for this if you don't understand how healing works Chris.
And you are also putting words in my mouth. I said that None of the NPCs cast prohibited spells in scenarios. Cure spells aren"t prohibited.
And I also know that you understand that. I can understand that prople want Masterwork Transformation made legal. I can respect that.
And I know that I'm going to get blaster for this, but come on Chris, you know...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-12T18:16:28ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: Permanency for spells not in core bookFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt7z?Permanency-for-spells-not-in-core-book#222011-09-06T17:00:25Z2011-09-06T16:34:32Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Andrew Christian wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote> (Though I've never seen an actual logical explanation of why Cure Light Wounds, Remove Disease, Raise Dead, and Restoration don't also end at end of scenario.) </blockquote><p>Because those spells are not permanent effects. They are instantaneous effects. Yes the healing is permanent, but the actual spell effect is not. It instantaneously causes the healing to occur.
<p>Just like the damage from a fireball is permanent because the spell is instantaneous.</p>
<p>Lets not get pedantic with are arguing over rules minutia and why certain rules and/or spells are not allowed in OP. </blockquote><p>You're not reading the rules. The rule specifically includes instantaneous effects (such as healing and fireball).
<div class="messageboard-quotee">GUIDE 4.0 wrote:</div><blockquote><p>The following spells, found in the Pathfinder RPG Core
</p>
Rulebook, are not legal for play and may never be used, found,
<br />
purchased, or learned in any form by PCs playing Pathfinder
<br />
Society scenarios: awaken, permanency, reincarnate.
<br />
Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario
<br />
that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the
<br />
scenario does. For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on
<br />
the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends,
<br />
the bless spell ends at the conclusion of the scenario.<b>This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent
<br />
duration</b>, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate. </blockquote><p>It's not pedantic to want the rules to mean what the rules say, instead of what some people think that they might be trying to say. Either the rules matter, or we can all just simply play whatever game pleases us at the time, and I can start writing awesome boons into character sheets.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">White Smoke wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
"You are appointed head of the Church of Aroden. You may now use the title Pope, and gain a +10 circumstance bonus to diplomacy and sense motive roles when dealing with any church official, regardless of deity."</blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">Old Spice Guy wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
"You are granted permanent rights to sleep with Venture Captain Eliza Petulingo, When doing so, she is required to scream your name at least seven times, followed by either "oh yes", or "oh gods". This boon grants you a +2 circumstance bonus when dealing with other female venture captains."</blockquote><p>Andrew Christian wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote: (Though I've never seen an actual logical explanation of why Cure Light Wounds, Remove Disease, Raise Dead, and Restoration don't also end at end of scenario.)
Because those spells are not permanent effects. They are instantaneous effects. Yes the healing is permanent, but the actual spell effect is not. It instantaneously causes the healing to occur. Just like the damage from a fireball is permanent because the spell is instantaneous.
Lets not get...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T16:34:32ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: PFS EvilometerFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ms8k?PFS-Evilometer#102011-08-30T18:59:53Z2011-08-30T18:48:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Thorkull wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">0gre wrote:</div><blockquote> Stuff </blockquote><p>I'd like to add the following to the evil acts points chart:
<p><b>75</b> Forwarding a chain letter.
<br />
<b>.5</b> Taking candy from a baby.
<br />
<b>.25</b> Taunting children because you have ice cream and they don't, 'cause they can't afford it, 'cause they're on the welfware, and 'cause their daddy is an alchoholic.
<br />
<b>.25</b> Pulling the wings off flies (not dire flies, that's combat).
<br />
<b>.125</b> Arguing with your GM about whether your chosen path constitutes an evil act.</p>
<p>Graces
<br />
<b>100</b> Rubbing her feat without being asked.
<br />
<b>10</b> Helping the little old lady across the busy street.
<br />
<b>.01</b> Per copper piece donated to the charity of your choice.</p>
<p>(God, I hope Ogre meant this as a humorous thread.) </blockquote><p>And the ultimate evil act:
</p>
<b>10000</b> Putting up stupid lists of "evil" acts!</p>Thorkull wrote:0gre wrote: Stuff
I'd like to add the following to the evil acts points chart: 75 Forwarding a chain letter.
.5 Taking candy from a baby.
.25 Taunting children because you have ice cream and they don't, 'cause they can't afford it, 'cause they're on the welfware, and 'cause their daddy is an alchoholic.
.25 Pulling the wings off flies (not dire flies, that's combat).
.125 Arguing with your GM about whether your chosen path constitutes an evil act.
Graces
100 Rubbing her feat...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-30T18:48:13ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: Sczarni and not being evilFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mo5i&page=7?Sczarni-and-not-being-evil#3362011-08-29T02:11:27Z2011-08-29T01:47:26Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p><b>The character has not 'died' and failed to be raised. A GM doing so would be cheating and should be reported to the campaign for their actions.</b>
<br />
</blockquote><p>This.
<p>A GM who misreports a character that he does not like as having "died" is himself clearly violating the "don't be a jerk" rule.</p>
<p>(It's not like "dead" and "evil" are even permanent states in Pathfinder. Dead characters can be raised. Evil characters can atone, should their class require it. Heck, any character can atone for a modest fee - though it is interesting to think about what a neutral character might atone for. "Dear Abadar, I'm sorry that I saved that cartload of orphans from the dragon and failed to collect my normal fee for heroic endeavors. I will not fail you again...")</p>james maissen wrote:The character has not 'died' and failed to be raised. A GM doing so would be cheating and should be reported to the campaign for their actions.
This. A GM who misreports a character that he does not like as having "died" is himself clearly violating the "don't be a jerk" rule.
(It's not like "dead" and "evil" are even permanent states in Pathfinder. Dead characters can be raised. Evil characters can atone, should their class require it. Heck, any character can atone for...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-29T01:47:26ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: Sczarni and not being evilFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mo5i&page=7?Sczarni-and-not-being-evil#3012011-08-28T05:52:48Z2011-08-27T20:00:57Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Jason S wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I understand where the GMs who are in favor of alignment change are coming from. </p>
<p>•• spoiler omitted ••</p>
<p>•• spoiler omitted ••</p>
<p>•• spoiler omitted ••</p>
<p>So while I technically disagree with the GMs who want alignment change, I also deeply sympathize. lol.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Wow.
<p>Okay. What would I do at this point?</p>
<p>"Excuse me table. /Look at player/ Can we talk a second?"</p>
<p>(Away from table...)</p>
<p>"Hey, I hate to say it, but you are really disrupting the table. You are playing a character who is supposed to be lawful, but clearly isn't. You are committing blatantly evil acts which while not in themselves are not against society rules, are clearly disruptive to the mission that your fellow Pathfinders are attempting to complete. And a quick glance at your previous chronicles indicates that you have chronicles that your character was ineligible to get."</p>
<p>(other player makes excuses, or gets belligerent, or something)</p>
<p>"I really don't have time to argue the points with you, as I've got a whole table of people who have put aside 4-5 hours to have an enjoyable day. Here's the options. Choice one is that you pack up and leave the table now. You can even say you have an issue that you have to leave to take care of, and I'll play along. Or you can storm off in a fit. Either way is fine.</p>
<p>"Choice two is that we both go back to the table and smile, and you start playing your character in a way that isn't disruptive to the table, and we don't have to talk about this anymore. Later, I'll help you get your character sheet in order with what valid chronicles you have. If you select this choice, and keep being disruptive, I'll remove you from the table in a much more obvious way."</p>
<p>"Which of these would you like to choose?"</p>Jason S wrote:I understand where the GMs who are in favor of alignment change are coming from.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
So while I technically disagree with the GMs who want alignment change, I also deeply sympathize. lol.
Wow. Okay. What would I do at this point?
"Excuse me table. /Look at player/ Can we talk a second?"
(Away from table...)
"Hey, I hate to say it, but you are really disrupting the table. You are playing a character who is...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-27T20:00:57ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: A question about magic armorFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mr02?A-question-about-magic-armor#442011-08-24T12:17:47Z2011-08-24T03:33:14Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Enevhar Aldarion wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
At what point does the non-existence of a rule constitute the rule not existing? </blockquote><p>When it is specifically stated by the folks in charge that it was an intentional change and not an accidental omission, especially when it is not something that was debated and/or commented on by Mark or Hyrum, or Josh before them, prior to an update to the Guide.
<p>Sometimes the well-meaning efforts at streamlining documents causes items to be lost in the editing process. Just compare the PRPG Core Book to the 3.5 PHB and DMG. I have found places where a sentence or paragraph simply never made the transition, and not because the rule was changed or the section rewritten to be more clear, but rather simply left out for whatever reason.</p>
<p>As an aside, there is still a list of items that Joshua Frost said would be added or updated or changed going from version 3.01 to 3.1 of the Guide. Yet a lot of those changes still have not appeared, as they were probably lost in the shuffle when he left and Hyrum and Mark took over. </blockquote><p>So the guide is only the guide when Paizo staff goes through point by point to affirm that what they wrote is what they intended?
<p>So a player cannot simply download the guide, and then look at additional resources and the FAQ and know the rules? They have to know what the rules used to be, and possibly still are, and what someone said the rule will be in the future, but didn't bother to put into the guide?</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but that seems to make little sense. Why bother publishing an update to the guide (or why bother to publish a guide at all) if the words on the page don't stand on their own?</p>Enevhar Aldarion wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote:
At what point does the non-existence of a rule constitute the rule not existing?
When it is specifically stated by the folks in charge that it was an intentional change and not an accidental omission, especially when it is not something that was debated and/or commented on by Mark or Hyrum, or Josh before them, prior to an update to the Guide. Sometimes the well-meaning efforts at streamlining documents causes items to be lost in the editing...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-24T03:33:14ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: Help me understand item purchases in PFSFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mobr&page=4?Help-me-understand-item-purchases-in-PFS#1572011-08-20T13:18:10Z2011-08-20T04:23:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sniggevert wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>This I can't quite understand. </p>
<p>Changing the pricing for a few consumable items is game breaking and onerous, but yanking the option out of even having such items is better?</p>
<p>There's a blanket pricing rule, so that it doesn't have to constantly change for corner cases. They keep putting out new books with spells and options (though it sounds like classes are done for a bit). Any time they add a new spell, it's possible to fall into the same category as the 3 above. </p>
<p>With the current rule, no adjusting of the house rule has to be done. If you want to do it narrowly, such as pulling out specific spells, then you possibly have to change the rule with each and every new book they put out with spells...and they put out new spells nearly every month in one line or the other.</p>
<p>I think this new proposed option would be a much bigger pain to keep up on than a simple blanket rule like there is now.... </blockquote><p>Lets start with: I generally dislike and distrust all house rules.
<p>Given that, the idea of a set of convoluted rules governing all wands, potions and scrolls, put in place in order to keep what really amount to 2 or 3 spells that some people don't like from being used by people who do like them seems more onerous to me than simply disallowing those 2 or 3 spells.</p>
<p>There already exists a rules document that outlines what specific game elements are disallowed. It's called "Additional Resources". Adding 2-3 entries to that list does seem to me less onerous than an entire system where one must verify that they are using spell levels for classes of items that they are not members of in order to buy items which, contrary to Core Rules now work for them as if they were a member of that class. </p>
<p>So yes. It does seem less onerous to me. But if it were my preference, the house rule would not exist at all.</p>Sniggevert wrote:This I can't quite understand.
Changing the pricing for a few consumable items is game breaking and onerous, but yanking the option out of even having such items is better?
There's a blanket pricing rule, so that it doesn't have to constantly change for corner cases. They keep putting out new books with spells and options (though it sounds like classes are done for a bit). Any time they add a new spell, it's possible to fall into the same category as the 3 above.
With the...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-20T04:23:00ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: Removing a character from play for being "Evil"Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2moff?Removing-a-character-from-play-for-being-Evil#282011-08-23T18:08:45Z2011-08-09T18:13:54Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Andrew Christian wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I don't want to create along drawn out new thread discussing what is and is not evil and how much evil should be considered for removal of a character from play.</p>
<p>What I'd like is to hear from Mark Moreland about whether table GM's, coordinators, and/or Venture-Captains even have the right to make that subjective call.</p>
<p>If they do, I think we need some documentation to add some objective guidelines for said removal.</p>
<p>This isn't a simple question of table variance that should be expected on many ambiguous rules issues.</p>
<p>This is an issue of someone completely losing their right to play their character. Which should not be up to the subjective whims of a GM, game-day coordinator, or venture captain. </blockquote><p>I would add the further question:
<p>Is there a distinction between characters being of evil alignment, and neutral characters who consider both evil and good acts to be two sides of the same coin?</p>
<p>If you are removing a character for performing evil acts, aren't you really banning that character for not being good-aligned?</p>
<p>If the logic is that only evil characters perform evil acts, then how can the converse not also be true (only good characters perform good acts)? In that case, where is the room for neutral characters?</p>Andrew Christian wrote:I don't want to create along drawn out new thread discussing what is and is not evil and how much evil should be considered for removal of a character from play.
What I'd like is to hear from Mark Moreland about whether table GM's, coordinators, and/or Venture-Captains even have the right to make that subjective call.
If they do, I think we need some documentation to add some objective guidelines for said removal.
This isn't a simple question of table variance that...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-09T18:13:54ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Player Companion: Heirloom Weapon trait fixed!Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mkxi&page=4?Heirloom-Weapon-trait-fixed#1692012-02-27T21:33:52Z2011-07-22T18:09:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Shifty wrote:</div><blockquote> If it's supposed to be an heirloom gift, why is Dad charging me top market rate for a 50 year old sword? </blockquote><p>"Son, as you head off into that great wide world out there, I can't help but think you need to have this sword by your side. Your great-grandfather first fought with it over 70 years ago defending Lord Throckmorton in his battle against Lord Stone. Your grandfather carried it in the Denver campaign. And I used it to repel borders on that cruise that your mother and I took when we were first wed. Now, it is your time. Carry it well, my son. And when you earn your glory, think of your family."
<p>"Why gee, thanks dad! I'll always remember you and mom, and what it means to be a Quantrill."</p>
<p>{starts walking towards door}</p>
<p>"Uh, son."</p>
<p>"Yes dad?"</p>
<p>"That'll be 28 gold pieces."</p>Shifty wrote:If it's supposed to be an heirloom gift, why is Dad charging me top market rate for a 50 year old sword?
"Son, as you head off into that great wide world out there, I can't help but think you need to have this sword by your side. Your great-grandfather first fought with it over 70 years ago defending Lord Throckmorton in his battle against Lord Stone. Your grandfather carried it in the Denver campaign. And I used it to repel borders on that cruise that your mother and I took...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-07-22T18:09:13ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Player Companion: Heirloom Weapon trait fixed!Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mkxi&page=2?Heirloom-Weapon-trait-fixed#812011-07-22T14:37:05Z2011-07-22T13:38:19Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">sunshadow21 wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>The rifle is still functional, but it really something you would want to routinely have to rely on to kill someone before they could kill you? I, too, have a family heirloom in the form of a rifle from either the civil war or earlier. That doesn't mean that if I were to take up the life of mercanery that I would be interested in relying on it in the field. </blockquote><p>Hmm. A properly cared for M1?
<p>M1 Garand
<br />
Fires a 30 caliber (30-06) round. Muzzle velocity 2800 fps. Effective range 400 yards. </p>
<p>It was in service for 21 years in the US Army as the standard issue rifle. </p>
<p>It saw service in WWII, Korea, Arab-Israeli war, Indochina, Vietnam, Suez, Cambodia and Northern Ireland.</p>
<p>Described by Patton as "the greatest implement of battle ever devised".</p>
<p>Nope, not something you'd want to rely upon to kill people.</p>sunshadow21 wrote:The rifle is still functional, but it really something you would want to routinely have to rely on to kill someone before they could kill you? I, too, have a family heirloom in the form of a rifle from either the civil war or earlier. That doesn't mean that if I were to take up the life of mercanery that I would be interested in relying on it in the field.
Hmm. A properly cared for M1? M1 Garand
Fires a 30 caliber (30-06) round. Muzzle velocity 2800 fps. Effective range 400...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-07-22T13:38:19ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Glorious Heat + Spark = Unlimited HealingFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2metv&page=3?Glorious-Heat-Spark-Unlimited-Healing#1182011-06-18T02:45:43Z2011-06-18T01:09:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Tarlane wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
In the above quote you mentioned that Paizo simply says they are not issuing errata for this. I think its a bit of a mis-statement. What I believe was said is that this is an issue that would be errata were that book to receive errata. This is unlikely since errata is only released when a reprint is done and most of the side books never get a reprint, but I do think it is an important distinction.
<br />
</blockquote><p>This is probably the crux of most of the issue that I have with Paizo over this and other poorly designed, poorly developed, poorly edited, rules that seem to "slip through" with increasing frequency.
<p>The idea that they are only supporting their products that are popular enough to drive a reprint seems (irresponsible?)(callous?)(stupid?) on its face. Either a company supports their product, or they do not. If you purchased a piece of software and found a persistent error or security bug or other issue and the company said that they would only fix that bug when they went to do another run of dvd-roms, and since they had made a large enough pressing, the likelihood was small that they would ever fix that bug, they would lose reputation quickly. What makes printed paper different, in that Paizo can simply abandon product as soon as it is published?</p>
<p>I have worked in the software world, both in mass produced consumer product, and custom designed software, and I know for a fact that no customer would ever accept that type of answer when confronted with a bug. Does it take development time to fix bugs? Fer sure. And every time you find one, you look at whether that bug could have/should have been found prior to publishing. Did testing fail? Did a late change that circumvented QC cause the bug to come out? Were QC procedures insufficient? Doesn't matter. You still fix the bugs. </p>
<p>I've seen the argument on this board that "the rules are free, what you are paying for is the pretty pictures and nice paper, so don't complain when someone has an error in something that is being given to you for free." Well, even that argument falls down when compared to the world of software. Ubuntu Linux is free. And every time someone finds a security hole or software bug or interaction that causes unwanted effects, they release a patch. In fact they have recommended security patches and feature patches and new version patches for every piece of software that you've ever installed on that machine. Why? Because a bug is a bug is a bug. Either you support your product, or you don't.</p>
<p>What particularly frustrates me is the fact that I seem to be one of a very very small minority that thinks that errors should be fixed. As if quality is measured by the pretty pictures, and not by the devotion to produce well written, well developed, and well edited product that the publisher stands behind today and tomorrow.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee"> "Chevy Chase in Christmas Vacation" wrote:</div><blockquote>Hallelujah! Holy s+%•! Where's the Tylenol?</blockquote><p>Tarlane wrote:In the above quote you mentioned that Paizo simply says they are not issuing errata for this. I think its a bit of a mis-statement. What I believe was said is that this is an issue that would be errata were that book to receive errata. This is unlikely since errata is only released when a reprint is done and most of the side books never get a reprint, but I do think it is an important distinction.
This is probably the crux of most of the issue that I have with Paizo over this...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-06-18T01:09:05ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Glorious Heat + Spark = Unlimited HealingFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2metv&page=2?Glorious-Heat-Spark-Unlimited-Healing#752011-06-16T19:53:08Z2011-06-16T19:46:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Jason Bulmahn wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Alright folks,</p>
<p>Lets all just calm down a bit.</p>
<p>Unlimited healing at the cost of a feat and an orison slot is just too good. This is a fix. It is neither elegant, nor my preferred solution (which would have been to catch this before it went to print, but mistakes do slip through), it is simply a fix for the OP system.</p>
<p>I am looking into other ways to do fixes like this that do not require a book reprint, but that is a dangerous ground to walk into, especially unprepared, but that is a topic for another thread.</p>
<p>This fix will go into official campaign documentation, unless Mark and Hyrum decide that instead a ban is more appropriate. I leave that for them to decide.</p>
<p>Jason Bulmahn
<br />
Lead Designer
<br />
Paizo Publishing </blockquote><p>Well, this begs the question - What cost for unlimited out-of-combat healing isn't "just too good."?
<p>You can accomplish the same thing with the "fixed" version by using Magical Lineage trait and Heighten Spell.</p>
<p>So is the cost of one trait and two feats still too good, too low, or about right? In any case, how might this calculation be arrived at? </p>
<p>(Why am I reminded of the Winston Churchill/Lady Astor story of "Madame, I know what you are - what we are discussing is price."?)</p>
<p>I understand that you are referring to it as a "mistake" that "slip[ped] through", but at some point, someone wrote this feat and thought that it was fine (and at the time there was a 0-level spell extant), and someone edited/developed this spell and also thought that it was just fine, and the book went to print. So from my perspective, this looks like a difference in opinion on what comprises balance that you might have with whoever wrote and edited this feat originally.</p>
<p>If this cost is too low, and the heighten spell/magical lineage is still too low, then what is an adequate cost?</p>Jason Bulmahn wrote:Alright folks,
Lets all just calm down a bit.
Unlimited healing at the cost of a feat and an orison slot is just too good. This is a fix. It is neither elegant, nor my preferred solution (which would have been to catch this before it went to print, but mistakes do slip through), it is simply a fix for the OP system.
I am looking into other ways to do fixes like this that do not require a book reprint, but that is a dangerous ground to walk into, especially unprepared,...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-06-16T19:46:06Z