If you look at the post date, you'll see I wrote that before the PFS Primer was written.
But in this case, I can't even imagine a potential future exploit. As I said to Walter, it's not open-ended like some things in the game; it's not going to combo with something later on down the line. It is what it is, and it will never be more. So, what exploit is it that you're so sure is going to end up happening if we don't prevent it?
Jiggy, it wasn't a PFS game. I used a freshly minted PFS character of mine an arcanist, along with 3 iconics to give a base line. I thought To delve dungeons deep would also give a good baseline because most everyone is familiar with it.
Ah, okay. That makes sense, and is probably a good idea. :)
The two reservoir points...From the revised post "gaining a number of points equal to 1+1/2 her arcanist level" I think the rule pattern I have often seen is where the 1/2 is often rounded to a 1. So I assumed that would mean 2 reservoir points.
Patterns aren't rules. For instance, there's a pattern that "Extra (Class Feature)" feats (like Extra Rogue Talent) can be taken more than once, but that pattern is not a rule: you still can't take a feat more than once unless that specific feat says so, which means a cleric (for example) can only take Extra Channel once even though it breaks the pattern.
In the same way, just because a lot of "half your level" abilities specify a minimum of 1, doesn't make it a rule. The arcanist's ability does not (currently) specify a minimum, therefore it follows the general rule of always rounding down. You get your second reservoir point at 2nd level.
Ah, okay. And speaking of Expanded Arcana... it seems clear it should work, but I'll be buggered if I know HOW it's supposed to work. Do you pick one individual spell and your extra preparation each day is ALWAYS that specific spell? Is it simply +1 spell prepared? If the latter, is it locked into the spell level you picked when you took the feat? Definitely needs clarification. :/
Walter Sheppard wrote:
"It is clearly overpowered, so why not ban / nerf it proactively? To prevent it being an issue in the future?" -- this might be what Nik is trying to say.
Fortunately, being able to re-roll a save isn't open-ended enough to end up combo-ing with new material down the line and becoming an issue, so no ban is needed. :)
Contrast with, say, the alchemist's Infusion discovery, which could end up breaking something down the line if the wrong new formula gets printed. That's open-ended, with its power dependent on other elements in the game. A save re-roll is a fixed thing; if it's not a problem now, it won't be later either.
For starters, if you think "TPA" is a thing, you really need to re-download your Guide to Organized Play and give it a read.
Between that and the official FAQ, you should be able to get this sorted out. At least more clearly than with a 2-year-old thread that was talking about wording held over from when the campaign didn't even have its own ruleset.
Whether it is being exploited or not in the wild is irrelevant; what matters is that the trait is overpowered. It is, and should be dealt with for the sake of consistent balance. You don't need to see an exploit to judge balance; you can judge balance without proof.
You can judge balance without seeing an exploit, but it takes exploitation to make the imbalance actually matter. Look:
You say exploitation is irrelevant, but your examples are centered specifically around guarding against exploitation. One person bringing a knife and another person bringing a gun doesn't matter unless the gunman intends to do the other harm; if they're meeting for dinner, there's not an issue. A security breach in software only matters if someone intends to exploit it, which is why my laptop is not even password-protected; no one gives a crap what's on it.
You shot yourself in the foot. You claim that it should be banned "for the sake of consistent balance", but then explain that what you really mean is it should be banned because you fully expect people to abuse it — but that's not happening.
Look, if you go to the Magic chapter of the CRB, and look up the "Area" heading (since that's what's in glitterdust), and NOT the "Effect" heading (since glitterdust doesn't have that line), you'll find that one of the subheadings is "Creatures":
Core Rulebook, Magic chapter, Spell Descriptions, Aiming a Spell, Area, Creatures wrote:
A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select. The area might be a spherical burst, a cone-shaped burst, or some other shape.
It's broken in the "if I apply the Effect rules to a spell without an Effect line, weird things happen" way?
I think the descriptive text of glitterdust makes it sufficiently clear that, rather than a lingering cloud of particles hanging in the air, all of the particles settle onto creatures/objects in the area immediately.
Yeah, Glory is a pretty sweet domain for battle clerics (I guess blades are more glorious than spells?) so it definitely deserves consideration in any melee build.
But, "consideration", not "it's a requirement". You can certainly be viable without it. Just wanted to make sure you could make an informed decision. :)
Oh! If this isn't PFS, maybe you could ask your GM about doing a special-case Separatist without using the archetype? Offer him/her some cookies if necessary.
Cayden has the Travel domain AND the Strength domain, and I am taking the Strength domain for the domain spells (especially enlarge person) and the Ferocity subdomain.
Up until really late in your career, the only spell you're getting that isn't already a cleric spell is enlarge person. And that takes an entire round to cast (though it does combo well with the reach weapon). Heroism, by contrast, gives you bless weapon (normally paladin-only) and heroism (normally sorc/wiz only) and you will use both of those spells for your entire career; they never go out of style.
The Ferocious Strike thing... I dunno, half your level to damage a few times per day with misses costing you uses? I can't help wondering if you're going to be disappointed as it makes less of an impact than you imagine. Especially when you're 3/4 BAB, bonuses to hit (like heroism) are more valuable than bonuses to damage. But I could be wrong.
As for Glory domain, aside from the spells and the Heroism ability (which does look kickass) it looks like most of that domain is not useful to me, since I am not channeling, and I don't have Cha for the Touch of Glory.
Honestly, I totally forgot about the channeling bonus, because the domain is so good even without it. And if you think you need CHA for Touch of Glory, you need to re-read it: the uses are based on WIS, the bonus is based on level, and you can use it on other people. How would you like to boost the party face from "solid" to "omgwtf" several times per day? And in a pinch, if you *do* find yourself needing to make a social check that you're not prepared for, you can go ahead and use it on yourself to go from "OH CRAP SOCIAL ROLL" to "I've got a decent shot at this".
Even so, I do confess it doesn't have much to do with your fighty-ness. I like versatility, but everybody's different. :)
if they fail their DC 20 Sense Motive check to verify you are trustworthy
Why is there a check to verify you're trustworthy? Why would they default to thinking you're NOT trustworthy unless a successful check intervenes to tell them that their original assessment of you still holds? Why is it not the other way around, with them defaulting to regarding you exactly the same way they regarded you ten seconds ago unless a check intervenes to prompt them to change their minds?
By requiring a check to keep people from worsening their attitudes toward a caster, you show your belief that spellcasting is something inherently unlikable, whose social consequences are by default negative unless you're rescued by a d20 roll.
Sorry, but that's not the Golarion I'm familiar with.
Bah. Compare strength scores. The guy with the higher strength score wins at arm wrestling. All this dice rolling stuff is BS.
Nah, too crunchy. The outcome should be decided by the GM based on what's best for the story; to do otherwise is to be a "cruncher" who ignores fluff. Take your "strength scores" and get out of my game, cruncher!
How do we end up in one tree or the other?
By what's actually happening, not by what the NPC perceives.
If the PC's action really is hostile, we WILL be initiating combat rounds, regardless of whether the NPC knows the nature of the action. The Sense Motive check just tells us whether or not the PC gets a surprise round.
If the PC's action truly is NOT hostile, then we check whether the NPC would treat it as potentially hostile/inappropriate anyway (guards/airport security, paranoid people, social taboo, etc). But if no such condition exists, then the spell goes off without initiative, and NPCs react to the results as appropriate.
But it also means the average commoner (untrained, Sense Motive +0) is only going to have a 5% chance of recognizing a benign caster as not trying to actively kill them.
Alternatively, it instead means they only have a 5% chance of recognizing a hostile caster is trying to kill them. (Unless of course said caster is already clearly identified as a threat.)
Why, that's almost like in the movies where one guy in the crowd realizes that someone's about to pull something and yells "Get down!" to the masses but they all die anyway.
Basically, people continue to assume you are what they already thought you were, unless something obviously changes or they make their Sense Motive check. If they thought you were unimportant/not a threat, they'll continue to think so unless they make the check or until your actions speak for themselves.
But on a recent set of posts I'd say this. You can't use Sense Motive on a form of communication you can't understand. If you can identify that say a spellcaster cast a "Remove Curse", or a cure spell, I'd allow a sense motive roll to get a hint if he was sincerely altruistic in his motives... if the player asks for one. However a spell that's totally not identified, does not leave you a basis for a sense motive check. If you don't know what the person has done, then you can't try to figure out a motive behind it.
You speak as though Sense Motive's only function were to assess the truth or falsehood of a direct statement. That's not the case, as I referenced somewhere else on this page.
As for using it when someone casts a spell you didn't identify, to suggest it wouldn't work is ludicrous.
If two people react to their food tasting bad, and the first just makes a little bit of a face and then calmly casts a spell while focusing his attention on his food, but the second guy spits it back onto his plate before standing red-faced and loudly casting a spell in the direction of the nearest waiter; Sense Motive represents being able to tell that the first guy was mildly displeased and intends to use magic to adjust his meal and that the second guy is royally pissed and it's about to get ugly.
You don't need a Spellcraft ID of the spells to be able to tell the difference between those two people. You use Sense Motive.
Ryan Blomquist wrote:
Right, I'm not terribly concerned with the guard. They have to be suspicious.
Ah, okay, I misunderstood you then. My bad.
Ryan Blomquist wrote:
If the PC is taking a "hostile"/"offensive"/etc action, then we're going into initiative. Note that this has nothing to do with whether or not the action in question is magical; I'm a firm believer that if you're taking a combat action, you have to roll initiative first, and someone who realizes what you're about to do has the chance to be quicker on the draw.
In the specific case of spellcasting as that initiative-starting action, the NPC gets a Sense Motive check before the spell actually gets cast to realize the offensive intent. This would be DC 20 (with any appropriate modifiers for the situation), unless the PC wants to use Bluff, in which case we go that route.
Success means they get to act in the surprise round (or that we don't have a surprise round, depending on if everyone made their check). Failure means the PC gets a surprise round in which to cast their spell (which in turn *might* mean we don't bother with initiative).
Basically, if the PCs initiate hostilities with a spell, Sense Motive tells us if they manage to surprise the NPC or not.
But all that goes out the window if the PCs aren't actually initiating hostilities (like if they're casting guidance before asking a favor or something). Then we go down a different route, as described in my earlier post.
...Does that clear anything up at all?
I haven't been involved in previous playtests, but as I understand it, the established practice is that you can keep playing your playtest-version PC (using the latest available write-up, including messageboard updates/changes/clarifications) right up until the book comes out, at which point you need to buy it and convert your PC.
Ryan Blomquist wrote:
In the case of a guard, whose job is to be suspicious of people trying to get past them, they're an exception to "if you don't seem hostile, let it go".
You ask the guard to let you through, they say no, you reach for your spell component pouch? Even if they honestly think you're fine, they'll still at least point to your hand with an "Ah-ah-ah! None of that, now!" Just like suddenly reaching into a deep pocket, or any number of other things you shouldn't do at airport security.
Though the structuring of my sentences earlier may not have made it clear, I was listing guards as an exception to my proposed norm of "no initial reaction unless you seem hostile".
The funny thing is... there's no mechanic for telling the truth.
Core Rulebook, Skills chapter, Sense Motive wrote:
You have no idea what I wrote.I wasn't talking about how Spellstrike relates to the warpriest. I was talking about how Spellstike on the magus undermines a premise you used to support your idea that Spell Combat would affect the magus and warpriest differently.
To break it down even more simply for you:
Do you understand now?
The section you pointed me to has the guards already believing that the spell in question is non-hostile.
No, it has the guards as an example of someone who would be less likely to presume the spell was non-hostile. That is, I stated that when a PC casts a spell in a non-hostile manner, folks won't react until they see what the spell does unless they have a specific reason to do so, such as being unfriendly or being a guard in the PC's path. Follow now?
Unless an enemy turns out to be spectacularly hard to hit, magi willingly use their touch spells against normal AC via Spellstrike as standard operating procedure. I don't even know the last time I saw a magus try to deliver a spell against Touch AC. Thus, most/all of what you said about the difference between a magus and a warpriest is faulty to the point of irrelevance.
I'm not MrSin, but I suspect that's what he meant when he asked you not to comment about the magus without understanding it better (rude though it may have been).
Under the first bolded heading, third paragraph. A guard who sees you as potentially wanting something he can't let you have is going to react to spellcasting before he knows what it is, because it's his job to be ready.
Scott Young wrote:
A commonner doesn't even know that there are different spells - they just think it's all "magic".
I'm a bit skeptical of this claim, to be honest. Commoners live in communities, have families, know lots of people, and are at least reasonably familiar with the laws of their own homes. Unless the spellcaster(s) they've personally met make a habit of misrepresenting their own capabilities, any commoner who has more than the Village Idiot's 4 INT is going to know that different individual spells exist. And that's without even mentioning the annual public announcements of updated spell "ban lists".
Sorry, but even to the uninitiated, magic is not this vague and mysterious force of which the commoners have no comprehension. "It's all just magic" as a concept probably doesn't even exist in Golarion, since magic has been a collection of individual spells since the dawn of time.
If nothing else, this thread has made me think a lot about how *I* will be handling public spellcasting in the future. I think this is about where I'm at right now (feedback appreciated). Note that this is all before applying any regional caveats or whatever.
When the spell is declared, before it's cast:
If so, then it's just like any non-magical initiation of hostilities: you don't get to take your first turn outside of initiative, so we roll it up and the NPC gets a check to see it coming (probably Sense Motive) and if he fails, the spell you announced is your action in the surprise round.
If it's not an initiation of hostilities, like casting light or guidance or whatever, then assuming no specific reason to dislike your spellcasting in general (like being less than indifferent toward you, or being a guard who just told you "no" to something you wanted, etc), then they don't react to the initiation of spellcasting and we move on to:
After the spell is cast:
If the effects are NOT obvious, then you might have a situation, simply because you did something but no one knows what. For instance, meeting an injured and frightened stranger, casting a spell with no visual effects and then reaching for them is going to scare the crap out of them unless you first ask permission to use some healing magic. Or if you ask someone something, they lie to you, and then they see you cast an unknown spell and start looking them up and down, that's going to affect the conversation.
On the other hand, situations where truly innocent/appropriate spellcasting's purpose isn't easily inferred is going to be rare. Someone casting spells on themselves on their way out of the city gate isn't suspicious in the slightest—people take precautions when traveling. Totally run-of-the-mill.
That's about where I'm at right now. Anyone have any feedback, particularly of the "X seems unreasonable because Y" variety?
I remember running a 2nd edition adventure. Back then there was no Spellcraft skill for identifying spells. The adventure called for a Lizardman shaman to approach the party in a non-hostile manner and cast "Tongues" so that he could communicate with the party. I had the shaman step out on the path ahead of the party in a clear manner, he made a show of taking out all of his weapons and plainly laying them at his feet before starting to cast "Tongues." As soon as he started casting, the party attacked.
I disagree with your implied assertion that players' metagamey behavior should be used as a framework for determining NPCs' behavior.