Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Mammon Cultist

Sissyl's page

10,631 posts (11,931 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 11 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,631 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Tuba or not tuba, that's the question, isn't it?

Knock knock!

Who's there?

Matt.

Matt who?


Jokey the Unfunny Comedian wrote:
* Something something something BEAR PUN *

*laughs uproariously*

Your best yet, Jokey!


What if it is a very small dragon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not sure what you would really need to adapt. Willow is a nelwyn, meaning halfling, and a 0 level character going into wizard. Madmartigan, Airk, Sorsha and pretty much all the other nelwyns going with Willow are fighters, Franjean and Rool are archetypical pixie rogues. Cherlindrea and Bavmorda are wizards. Rat dogs are perfect as goblin dogs.

It is one of the few fully adapted D&D movies.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Title: The Princess of Procrastination

.......

I'll get back to this.


Does this correlate with less FLGSs?


A purple Drizzt sounds great. :-)


The NYC bulette was happy to provide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a very obvious problem with doing anything movie-wise in Menzoberranzan. Drow have dark skin. How much cruelty, demons, murder, and the pure evil the city is described as do you think you need to make national news about racism?


I send Eeyore as a happy telegram to IHIYC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I liked Chiang's The story of your life, even though second person. Then again, it is written as a letter to someone, so it works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Miss Taekwondo? That is one hell of a name. ...Sorry.


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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


Ventnor is also a Hasturfarian.

(Damn, hope this doesn't end badly...)


No, it's a freakin' shark launcher. That is awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"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.


Druids specialized on earth elemental form are great fun to play. Even better in deeper darkness. Even yet better with huge size, a dwarven dorn dergar, whopping great reach and the feats to maximize the utility of that.


Bill: I believe Chemlak said it best:

Chemlak wrote:

There's a reason people think that, and it's because there's a paragraph of the FAQ which begins "In general...", which PDT use to describe the general case that should be used for rules interactions, including those not specifically covered by the FAQ.

So the fact that the question is about concentration, pearls of power, and magus recall doesn't matter, because they give us a general rule to apply in all other situations where "what level applies?" comes up. Such as this thread.

As I interpret him, this is about EVERY SINGLE RULES INTERACTION regarding every kind of metamagic. It. Is. ALWAYS. To. The. Caster's. Disadvantage.


bbangerter wrote:
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:
Sissyl wrote:

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.

Now, see, I was interpreting "least advantageous to the caster" as requiring the use of the more expensive rod to empower the quickened fireball rather than assuming the intent of the rule was to be outright broken.

Going in assuming that the game is supposed to work rather than assuming the most pedantic interpretation of the rule text is right seems to work a lot better for me. Maybe you should try it.

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.


bbangerter wrote:
Sissyl wrote:


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.

PRD says otherwise.

PRD wrote:


Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower.

...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):

FAQ wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gauss: I am well aware of that. That is why I wrote what I wrote.

Note that since incorporeal creatures are no longer on another plane, they sort of have to "be in contact with the ground". This is even more clear since they need some part of their bodies outside it.


Even if they do not want to call it an errata, they could at least put a FAQ that clearly covers how all metamagic works, and specify that it is a change of the rule that metamagic does not change the level of the spell.


Rysky wrote:


And keep saying it should have been an errata, okay and? What difference does it make if they call it that or not?

To lots of people it was just a clarification, to you it was an errata. Okay, it's an errata, and?

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?


Oh, so the rules ARE clear, you just have to go through the discussion leading up to the FAQ to see it? Sounds great. Maybe there should be a link to those discussions from the FAQ, and "what we mean is in those discussions, except when it isn't"?


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.


Saethori wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I just put up a new thread requesting a clarification of the FAQ in question. If you like, please add your voice to the FAQ request there.
Unfortunately, said thread does not mention or ask about metamagic rods, which is kind of the whole source of the confusion here.

I find that suprising, considering that I specifically asked about metamagic rods.


No, the FAQ only applies to concentration DCs and spell recovery abilities. The level of the spell doesn't change from the metamagic feat, meaning you can still use a lesser metamagic rod on a quickened fireball (still a level 3 spell, now using a level 7 slot).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, webinar is awful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, we need some really bad words to be associated with. How about "superfluous"? "taxation"? Or even "proctitis"?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I just put up a new thread requesting a clarification of the FAQ in question. If you like, please add your voice to the FAQ request there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dazing Spell is good. =)


bbangerter wrote:
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:

FAQ wrote:
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:

FAQ wrote:
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.


13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

The recent FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Metamagic: At what spell level does the spell count for concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power?

The spell counts as the level of the spell slot necessary to cast it.

For example, an empowered burning hands uses a 3rd-level spell slot, counts as a 3rd-level spell for making concentration checks, counts as a 3rd-level spell for a magus's spell recall or a pearl of power.

In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. 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. 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?


...so long as it pertains to concentration DCs, pearls of power, and spell recall for maguses, yes. But no, level is a specific term, and does not refer to slot.


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?


Drahliana, you need to understand the difference between the level of the spell, and the slot used to cast it. Metamagic changes only the slot, not the level. And the level is what the metamagic rods check for.


The FAQ wrote:

At what spell level does a spell modified by a metamagic feat count for purposes of concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power?

The spell counts as the level of the spell slot necessary to cast it.

For example, an empowered burning hands uses a 3rd-level spell slot, counts as a 3rd-level spell for making concentration checks, counts as a 3rd-level spell for a magus's spell recall or a pearl of power.

In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. 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.

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.

PFSRD wrote:
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.

and

PFSRD wrote:
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:

Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat, allowing the user to apply metamagic effects to spells (but not spell-like abilities ) as they are cast. This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell. ... A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod's wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.

Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. ...

Lesser and Greater Metamagic rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Skyrim Rampage Cap'n Yesterday wrote:
Got my Storm Atronach! I'll take her out for some devastation later. :-)

How... romantic. =)


how about some thread evo?


*pulls her headdress loose from skewered fiend-brow*

Ah well.


Cheers!


You are also very welcome to leave this thread, TFF. =)

1 to 50 of 10,631 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.