|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Adventurer means someone without a place in society. Someone who takes risks FAR beyond what sane people would be comfortable with. Worse, they NEED TO, because getting strange and extremely dangerous missions is the only way they can have a decent income. And of course, these missions are not necessarily matched to their capabilities. So they have very high rates of attrition.
In short, not something you do if you want a good life expectancy.
And thus: There needs to be a reason why the person chooses to be an adventurer that is more important to him/her than a good life expectancy. That is what makes them interesting.
I just don't understand. People have a lot of different tendencies. They want the stuff they have bought to stay relevant and completely accurate forever. Thus, they do not want new editions of PF. They also want the new and shiny. Thus, leaving PF for said new and shiny. These two things are pretty damn hard to reconcile.
Or perhaps what they want is a game without rules bloat? At this time, PF is pretty much the worst example in the industry, a consequence of years of Paizo listening to what its fans wanted. They have published new rules, while their main income (as I have understood it) has remained the APs. Again, listening to the fans eventually gets you to where the fans leave.
The analysis that was made after the autopsy of TSR still rules harshly. Don't split the fanbase, and thus do not make more than one setting for the game. Ever. But... A new setting is where you can experiment. Take risks. Those products are often the most delightful. They get fans clamouring for more a decade later. Safely holding to the known concept gets you another sale, and a forgettable setting.
In each of these issues, is it impossible to imagine a middle way? Does it have to be all or nothing?
And the point is... if you have done something like that... then you accept it. You turn yourself in. You suffer, and you know why you suffer. AND YOU DON'T EVEN TRY TO RATIONALIZE IT. Or else you do, claiming that "I did the morally right thing, the people on the other track were more in number blah blah blah blah blah blah blah greater good blah blah blah blah every good person would do the same blah blah blah blah!!!!" (monologuing is a time honoured tradition with people like you) and you're evil. Congratulations.
"For the greater good" is one of the absolutely most characteristic catchphrases of the Lawful Evil alignment. "Can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" is another. Concepts like "net loss of life" is bread and butter to Lawful Evil. And when you question such a character, they will bring up stupid black and white situations like the tram problem.
See, Lawful is all about the group before the individual. And more specifically, the vaguely defined, not personally known group of, say, an organization, a city, or a country. Or a race.
And Evil, because these are the people who consider killing a way to improve the situation, even killing innocents. Not in self-defense, not even of declared enemies, but innocents. As soon as that becomes okay to you, you have that little E on your character sheet.
But it takes a while to get there. Sometimes, rarely, there is no way out that you can see. You may have to do awful things to save people. And you will be doing an evil act if you do. But as has repeatedly been stated, a single act does not force an alignment change. But once you start rationalizing it (the hallmark of Evil), spouting nonsense like "I did it for the greater good", you're done.
Bill: I believe Chemlak said it best:
As I interpret him, this is about EVERY SINGLE RULES INTERACTION regarding every kind of metamagic. It. Is. ALWAYS. To. The. Caster's. Disadvantage.
Sorry Sissyl, now your simply being pedantic.
Since you are so convinced, why don't you humour me and give me an argument for why what I say is wrong instead of avoiding the issue? Besides, your lucky save that a greater rod can handle a level 3 spell above makes me not alone in being pedantic here.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Absolutely. I am all for that. But hey, could you then convince this bunch of people to agree on where the limits are for "disadvantageous for the caster"? There doesn't seem to be any sort of limit to it as it stands, at least if you listen to what the people who like the FAQ say.
...really? THAT is your argument? *chuckles*
Try this then:
I have two pearls of power, level 3 and 7. I have just cast a quickened fireball. I try to get it back with the level 7 pearl. Level 3 would be to my disadvantage, so it fails.
Next round I cast another quickened fireball, and try the level 3 pearl. That too fails, because it is to my disadvantage that the spell is level 7.
Hmmm, no. Let's see what the FAQ tells us (again):
In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster.
So, since it would be a disadvantage to me, the caster, in this instance, to have it as a level 3 spell, meaning the rod couldn't work then, it is a level 3 spell, the (normal, lower) spell level.
To be a bit less obtuse: The problem here is that "In general, use whatever is more of a disadvantage for the caster" is lousy rules language, since it doesn't in any way convey what situations the rule covers.
I have a lesser and a greater rod. I try to use the lesser one for empowering my quickened fireball. Does it work? No. It would be a level 7 spell since that is most disadvantageous to me.
Now I try my greater rod instead. Does that work? No. Since the greater rod can't handle a level 3 spell, that is more disadvantageous to me.
A clarification that (by some interpretations) goes against very clear rules, that do not clarify their scope, and only gives an example about very specific cases is not a good one. If they had made an errata to the text on metamagic feats and metamagic rods, it would have been very clear that that was their intention.
It is also a question of indexing. If I look through the PFSRD for metamagic rods, how will I know that an answer about metamagic and pearls of power is relevant to that? How will I know I can look for info about vampiric touch and not miss something about vampiric touch that is written in a faq about encumbrance? Or something equally obscure?
Whether it does mean that or not, the rules before the FAQ on metamagic feats and rods were clear. Now it is all but clear. If such a change is what they want, it really should have been an errata and it should not start as an explanation of some very specific cases. Also, the metamagic rods should be re-priced.
I find that suprising, considering that I specifically asked about metamagic rods.
Does that not highly suggest you may very well be wrong in your view? If you don't understand why those paragraphs are included, does it not behoove you to find out why before making claims about their applicability to anything else?
No. The sentences do not support your stance, they simply do not make sense as written. You are supposed to calculate level and slot by what is worse for the caster. Then, the first sentence helpfully tells us that:
The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.
...which applies to what, exactly? Certainly not to what was written before. It continues by telling us that:
Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage.
Does this mean Heighten Spell is now no longer useful at all, since it is an advantage, and advantages should not be counted anymore?
No, the problem is not one of understanding. It is an unclear FAQ.
The recent FAQ
is unclear. There is an interpretation that it changes everything about metamagic according to what you write in the FAQ. Which would mean that metamagic rods operated off the new slot level of the spell with metamagic applied. As an example, a fireball (level 3) modified by the Quicken Spell feat (+4 levels) would require a greater rod of metamagic, empower, to empower, instead of a lesser rod as before. Is this what you intended? Or does the FAQ only apply to questions of concentration DCs, pearls of power, and the magus spell recall ability?
Second, the text in the FAQ starting with "The advantages of the..." to the end is unclear as to its purpose. Why was it included?
Third, if you intend for this FAQ to change the rules regarding metamagic feats that thoroughly, would not an errata be a better place to do it?
The FAQ applies to specific cases, because those cases were previously unclear. The FAQ seems to have been made to prevent spell recovery abilities from being abused. I would guess someone used a lower level pearl of power to regain spells with metamagic?
You still have nothing that says all about metamagic is changed by this, bbangerter.
If you think the last sentences of the FAQ are clear, why do you think they are included?
The FAQ wrote:
This is the entire text of the FAQ. By the question, it specifically deals with a) concentration DCs and b) recovering spell slots. The example reinforces this, by again specifically dealing with a) concentration checks and b) recovering spell slots. No other factor of metamagic feats is called into question at all.
How to deal with this in all situations related to concentration DCs and recovery of spell slots? Well, you choose the least favourable method. Nothing about metamagic rods, no need to pretend the FAQ covers anything other than a) and b) above.
Why they then continue with "The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.
Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage." is unclear. That part of it really makes no sense. A FAQ is there to clarify things. This one certainly did not. Still, it certainly makes no statement like "this changes how metamagic feats function in all ways" or anything like what has been suggested in this thread.
Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.
In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast using a higher-level spell slot.
are pretty explicit. The level of the spell stays the same when metamagic is applied. The slot used changes. A spell of level 3, modified by two +1 metamagic feats remains a level 3 spell, but requires a level 5 slot. Incidentally, the slot used is perfectly fine to use for determining what a) can go in a potion etc, and b) what such an item (say, a wand of empowered fireballs, if that was possible to put in a wand) would cost. Note that the magic item creation rules are not the place to look for what metamagic feats do.
One more question remains: Do metamagic rods function differently than applying the normal metamagic feat?
PFSRD, sentences irrelevant to the argument ignored, wrote:
So: Metamagic rods do not change the slot used. They function exactly like the corresponding feat apart from this. And they can be used on any spells of the given LEVEL, not slot. Clear as clear can be.
Conclusion: Trying to generalize something written about two specific cases into a general argument that strongly nerfs all metamagic is overinterpreting it. If Paizo wanted to change all metamagic in the way you describe, they would be smart enough to make it an errata, simply to avoid this argument. And if they do not, they still haven't said anything that does not pertain to concentration DCs and recovering spell slots.
A wizard casting a quickened fireball would still be casting a level 3 spell, which is perfectly fine to empower with a lesser rod of metamagic, empower.
It is explicitly spelled out in the CRB that metamagic feats do not change the level of the spell used. Several times. It has been that way since 3.0. The FAQ refers to concentration checks and ways to recover spells, which has been a gray area. It is quite reasonable in what it says, stuff that lets you recover spells of a certain slot level should work that way. I do not see why this would change anything regarding metamagic rods, which function, again, off the level of the spell, not the slot level.
If it was an errata, sure. A FAQ is not really the vehicle to change rules.
Blindsight can't see ethereal creatures, and incorporeal creatures are sort of undefined as to if they can be seen with blindsight. "either ineffective or partially effective" is not exactly obvious. Tremorsense should not work, but by RAW, you could make a case for it. It lets you see "anything that is in contact with the ground", which an incorporeal undead could be said to be.
Agreed. Jean hasn't been too many times through the death-door.
First Jean died in the shuttle. That should have been enough, but:
Madelyne Pryor was a clone who went on to die in Inferno. She was clearly her own character, though.
Rachel Summers, Jean and Scott's daughter, returned as one of the last survivors of Days of Future Past. She then claimed her mother's powers - which never seemed to be as impressive as they were with Jean. Still, Jean was another interesting character.
Scott grieved for Jean, and various stories referenced Jean and the Phoenix force, most notably the one where Mastermind convinced the X-men through an illusion that Madelyne was phoenix as well.
Jean then returned, and the retrofit was that the phoenix force had saved her by putting her in a cocoon under central park, IIRC. When that was done fixing her radiation damage, she came back.
...and was then killed by a massive stroke due to a parting shot from Magneto.
...but Jean's consciousness still remained as a facet of the phoenix force, and did manipulate things in certain ways afterward.
Madelyne also returned in some way, but I didn't read that.
All in all, since the phoenix means rebirth, should this be horrible?
Yes. The retrofit of "coccon under central park" was horrible. The rest is decently done.
Blade elemental: In the school of metal elementalism, some practitioners have managed to summon elemental spirits in the form of absolutely massive greatswords. These blades handle themselves, are very tough due to their tempered steel bodies, and cause wounds severe enough to cause nightmares. The only problem is that they do have a tendency to slip from their summoner's control. When they do, massacres happen.
New substance: tears
Sucker Punch was bad. The uncut version was pretty damn good. It is amazing what a few extra minutes will do for a movie. Case in point was Terminator 2. I loved the movie, but I had only seen the theater version. I went to Blockbuster and rented it to watch with my ex- and I picked up the extended version. The extra 20 or so minutes made the movie even better.
The director's cut contains two extra scenes (maybe more, I just saw those two scenes on the net). Of the two, one is a show number which was glamorous but probably not necessary, the other is an absolutely central scene for the entire movie. Meeting the High Roller is where the heroine finally understands her own sexuality. During the entire film up to that point, others have forced her into acting for their pleasure. With him, she finally accepts her desire and acts on it. The mood goes from dread to triumph, the real emotional payoff of the entire movie. It explains so much of the other scenes that it's ridiculous. Given the thematics and symbols of the movie, I would speculate that what actually happens is that she meets him and finds him a decent person - which is corroborated by him shutting the asylum down. And of course, the moron censorship people see only sex=bad and CUT IT. It's a massive offense of the whole principle of censorship that leaves the movie mutilated.