At least there's things like Wikipedia now for when you'd really like to know what the heck a Falchion is. :-)
Unfortunately, as is immediately evident upon following the link, falchions were not two-handed scimitars. Thus, a description is required in such a major deviation from real-world examples.
I think the real problem here is that too many sections of the PFRPG Core Rulebook were copy/pasted straight from the SRD. Not the PH/DMG, but the SRD. This is why there is a renewal of the original 3E confusion over things such as the Empower Spell feat elsewhere on these boards. (In the 3.5 PH an example was given that totally eradicated doubt on the multiplication of damage in the feat, but it's not in the SRD and Paizo didn't replace it. In fact they seem as confused as any about what to rule.)
Actually the Forgotten Realms essentially was restating the Lord of the Rings trope where it originated. as Gimli explains to Frodo how Elves do not sleep as others do. It was then restated in at least one Best of Dragon article on elves. where the use of trance is stated as part of the mechanism that provides immunity to the basic sleep spell.[
This is a great example of false errata, actually. The concept of elves not sleeping is, in fact, a Forgotten Realms campaign-specific thing, one that's sort of virally spread to other campaigns.
I am confident that James is aware of the Tolkeinian origins of the sleepless elves. His statement about the Forgotten Realms origin is clearly in the context of game rules. Give the man a break.
Although, as pointed out earlier, it's inclusion in the 3.5 PH does fly in the face of the FR origin story.......James.....
(To be fair though, the "fluff" that contains the reference in the PH is not OGC; so rather than step on any WotC toes, I think they just left it out.)
Creative Director
|
Personally, I think that elves not sleeping is a bit TOO weird. Because that means, what, that there aren't bedrooms in elven society? I'd rather say elves sleep (or at the very least not say that they don't sleep) than constantly have to be on the lookout for elf maps that have bedrooms.
Personally, I think that elves not sleeping is a bit TOO weird. Because that means, what, that there aren't bedrooms in elven society? I'd rather say elves sleep (or at the very least not say that they don't sleep) than constantly have to be on the lookout for elf maps that have bedrooms.
Whoa.
That just blew my mind a little bit. Darn you, James Jacobs, I used to like the idea they didn't sleep. Another deeply set conviction lost in my jaundiced old age.
Wait a second, who says elves use those bedrooms for sleeping?... O.o
Haha! Deeply set conviction restored!
Wait a second, who says elves use those bedrooms for sleeping?... O.o
Haha! Deeply set conviction restored!
And don't forget the four hours of "reverie" as the kids call it these days....nudge-nudge-wink-wink
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
This thread got me thinking. Shouldn't Break Enchantment reverse petrification even if it's caused by flesh to stone?
In 3.5 the rules read: "Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as flesh to stone."
Why doesn't it now? The spell still need a caster level check and has a casting time of 10 minutes, so why nerf it from 3.5?
The rules in Pathfinder says:
"[...] Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. [...]
If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower. [...]"
The text says it can reverse even an instantaneous effect, but only if that spell is 5th level or lower.
My question is, are there any 5:th level spells or lower with a duration of instantaneous that break enchantment can reverse?
Shouldn't the text say: only if that spell is 6th level or lower?
Elves who need to use beds for that are doing it wrong.Wait a second, who says elves use those bedrooms for sleeping?... O.o
Haha! Deeply set conviction restored!
LOL
I yield to the Very Creative Director.
This thread got me thinking. Shouldn't Break Enchantment reverse petrification even if it's caused by flesh to stone?
In 3.5 the rules read: "Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as flesh to stone."
Why doesn't it now? The spell still need a caster level check and has a casting time of 10 minutes, so why nerf it from 3.5?The rules in Pathfinder says:
"[...] Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. [...]
If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower. [...]"The text says it can reverse even an instantaneous effect, but only if that spell is 5th level or lower.
My question is, are there any 5:th level spells or lower with a duration of instantaneous that break enchantment can reverse?
Shouldn't the text say: only if that spell is 6th level or lower?
Well, you may be right that there are insufficient uses for the clause, but the reasoning is that Break Enchantment is a 5th level spell itself. It would go against the grain of established spell power to allow it to override a higher level effect.
Well, you may be right that there are insufficient uses for the clause, but the reasoning is that Break Enchantment is a 5th level spell itself. It would go against the grain of established spell power to allow it to override a higher level effect.
Actually this is not completely true, as there is a precedent:
Mind Blank (Sorcerer/Wizard 8)
"Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to gain information about the target."
I don't find so broken that a specific spell can counter a specific, limited effect - such as a Break Enchantment being able to override petrification effects even from higher level spells.
After all, Restoration (a 4th level spell) is able to remove permanent negative levels such those caused by Energy Drain (a 9th level spell).
Just my 2c.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Break enchantment SHOULD be able to remove petrificaiton, if only because bottlenecking the effects that can restore a petrified creature with one 6th level spell is bad for the game. Especially since there are plenty of ways to get petrified at levels before you reach the ability to cast stone to flesh (even though we did nerf most of those petrification monsters and give alternate ways to undo the effects).
Since break enchantment isn't 100% auto-successful (you have to make a caster level check for it to work), allowing it to fix petrificaiton doesn't really even impinge upon stone to flesh, I think.
Well, you may be right that there are insufficient uses for the clause, but the reasoning is that Break Enchantment is a 5th level spell itself. It would go against the grain of established spell power to allow it to override a higher level effect.
Actually this is not completely true, as there is a precedent:
Mind Blank (Sorcerer/Wizard 8)
"Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to gain information about the target."
I don't find so broken that a specific spell can counter a specific, limited effect - such as a Break Enchantment being able to override petrification effects even from higher level spells.
After all, Restoration (a 4th level spell) is able to remove permanent negative levels such those caused by Energy Drain (a 9th level spell).
Just my 2c.
You are quite right. But the ruling on Mind Blank came after a HUGE forum discussion back in early 3.0, where game devs consistently said it could not override a higher level effect. Then in 3.5, it was allowed to, but it was understood (behind the design) that it was very special.
I was just cautioning against broad applications of the same logic, as it can easily get out of hand (across the general game audience) and lead to innumerable "questions" about various effects.
Having said that.....
Break enchantment SHOULD be able to remove petrificaiton, if only because bottlenecking the effects that can restore a petrified creature with one 6th level spell is bad for the game. Especially since there are plenty of ways to get petrified at levels before you reach the ability to cast stone to flesh (even though we did nerf most of those petrification monsters and give alternate ways to undo the effects).
Since break enchantment isn't 100% auto-successful (you have to make a caster level check for it to work), allowing it to fix petrificaiton doesn't really even impinge upon stone to flesh, I think.
....+5!
I totally agree.
Well, you may be right that there are insufficient uses for the clause, but the reasoning is that Break Enchantment is a 5th level spell itself. It would go against the grain of established spell power to allow it to override a higher level effect.
Against the grain of established spell power? There is no such thing.
Read the rules on dispel magic and dispel evil and Break Enchantment.
Again:
- are there any 5:th level spells or lower with a duration of instantaneous that break enchantment can reverse?
- is this an errata? That is should the text say "any 6:th level spells"
Against the grain of established spell power? There is no such thing.
Read the rules on dispel magic and dispel evil and Break Enchantment.
Again:
- are there any 5:th level spells or lower with a duration of instantaneous that break enchantment can reverse?
- is this an errata? That is should the text say "any 6:th level spells"
I was referring to a long discussion with the D&D 3.0 developers on the WotC forums way back. Some of them were pretty emphatic that the spell level of an effect had much to do with what spell level of counter-effect could take it down. Keep in mind that we're talking about Break Enchantment taking down an instantaneous effect. Dispel Magic and Dispel Evil cannot do that. Break Enchantment is special.
As I said, I agree with Mr. Jacobs assessment. But there most certainly is or was an established method of determining what level could affect what.
Against the grain of established spell power? There is no such thing.
Read the rules on dispel magic and dispel evil and Break Enchantment.
Again:
- are there any 5:th level spells or lower with a duration of instantaneous that break enchantment can reverse?
- is this an errata? That is should the text say "any 6:th level spells"I was referring to a long discussion with the D&D 3.0 developers on the WotC forums way back. Some of them were pretty emphatic that the spell level of an effect had much to do with what spell level of counter-effect could take it down. Keep in mind that we're talking about Break Enchantment taking down an instantaneous effect. Dispel Magic and Dispel Evil cannot do that. Break Enchantment is special.
As I said, I agree with Mr. Jacobs assessment. But there most certainly is or was an established method of determining what level could affect what.
OK, but didn't what you were refering to.
edit:...and yes I do keep in mind that we're talking about Break Enchantment taking down an instantaneous effect.
A spell with a casting time of 10 minutes that also need a caster level check. It's not that fantastic or über.
|
I fully endorse going through some of the more frequently complained about spells and mechanics and adding a few words here and there to make then infinitely more clear. Many of the spells and mechanics we use today are still... in many cases... almost unchanged verbiage from 20+ years and 2 generations ago. Many of the confusing points could be EASILY reduced with just one or two words here and there.
The problem is that would be a massive undertaking for Paizo and not likely to ever happen due to product cycles and all that jazz.
The best we could hope for really is an ongoing FAQ/Errata that (hopefully) is on the very near horizon which we at d20pfsrd.com can then add in errata boxes everywhere necessary.
|
|
Oh yes, we should still post things, because generally only once they've been "officially" errata'd do we add the info into d20pfsrd.com.
The only downside though is you will forever have to deal with a few individuals who are clearly far smarter than the rest of us and who have no issues being very direct about how they feel, suggesting that we just don't read well or don't WANT to understand or some such nonsense.
I really don't understand why these people bother responding to posts from people so far below them intellectually. If I was omniscient like them I'd never talk to commoners.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
The spell Analyze Dweomer has the following in its spell block
"Components V, S, F (a ruby and gold lens worth 1,500 gp)"
Does this mean that the ruby and gold lens are to be worth 1,500 gp each or 1,500 gp total?
There's only one price listed. That's the total price. If we'd meant a ruby worth 1,500 gp and a gold lens worth 1,500 gp, the total listed would have been 3,000 gp. We would have done the math for you.
Blade Barrier and Blasphemy are inconsistent in how they handle range and Area/Effect.
Blade Barrier lists the following:
Range: medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)Effect: wall of whirling blades up to 20 ft. long/level, or a ringed wall of whirling blades with a radius of up to 5 ft. per two levels; either form is 20 ft. high
Blasphemy lists the following:
It appears that Blasphemy should follow Blade Barrier's formatting, and list the "Area" as an "Effect" instead.
Range: 40 ft.Area: nonevil creatures in a 40-ft.-radius spread centered on you
The Blade Barrier is shapeable and is a wall whereas, Blasphemy is an instantaneous spread. This is consistent with the other similar spells in the rules.
One confusion that persists, since the dawn of 3.0, that continually irks me is the "personal" range spells (the ones centered on you) that are listed with a range equal to the area of their effect. I think it was done so as to establish in the spell stat block "how far" the effect goes, but I find it inconsistent and illogical. Especially since the area/effect line clearly states how far it bloody goes!
The Arcane Bloodline Sorceror's Arcana ability states it increases the DC by +1 to Metamagicked spells (exclusive of Heighten), which suggests it is "just like" Heighten. But Heighten Spell itself increases the SPELL LEVEL of the spell, which increases the DC by +1, but also is extremely relevant for effects like Globe of Invulnerability, and so forth.
If the Arcane Bloodline Arcane is MEANT to work exactly like a 1-Spell-Level Heighten, it should use the same language increasing the effective Spell Level as Heighten. If the intent is not to be the same as Heighten the current wording is fine (though it goes against the other similar effects which are effectively identical to their Metamagic counterpart within their given constraints).
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
The rules for Polymorph came up again, specifically the part that says:
which is needlessly indirect (and confusing, for creatures like rats with swim speeds but without waterbreathing), when it could just say 'you gain the ability to breathe in all environments the creature normally is able to'... though that doesn't deal with things like 'Hold Breath' ability, not to mention creatures which don't NEED to breathe.
Also, it is unclear if you apply any 'racial bonuses' to skills. It seems likely, at least for any that clearly derive from physical form, e.g. camouflage, but the rules are silent on this issue, as they are not 'abilities or powers'. 'General rule' bonuses like to CMD for having more than 2 legs are clear enough to me, but may not be to every reader.
The rules for Polymorph came up again, specifically the part that says:
which is needlessly indirect (and confusing, for creatures like rats with swim speeds but without waterbreathing), when it could just say 'you gain the ability to breathe in all environments the creature normally is able to'... though that doesn't deal with things like 'Hold Breath' ability, not to mention creatures which don't NEED to breathe.Also, it is unclear if you apply any 'racial bonuses' to skills. It seems likely, at least for any that clearly derive from physical form, e.g. camouflage, but the rules are silent on this issue, as they are not 'abilities or powers'. 'General rule' bonuses like to CMD for having more than 2 legs are clear enough to me, but may not be to every reader.
And the rules say nothing about being able to see except that earth creatures with a burrow speed possess tremorsense. So if you polymorph into a creature if the earth subtype that grants a burrow speed, do you gain tremorsense?
The spell block for Form of the Dragon I includes a line for Save and SR (different format than all the other spells), even though it is a personal range spell, which typically do not have Saving Throws or Spell Resistance lines included. The spell does not allow a saving throw or spell resistance, since it is a personal range spell.
I believe this is due to the fact that the form allows a Breath Weapon, which allows for a Saving Throw (technically however, even all other polymorphing spells should include those entries, for shapes that allow special attacks like Poison, Burn, and so on).
In the PRD, the format is 'Save: see below, SR: no', I have not my hardcover manual with me to see if the format is the same; on the spell description, you can read 'All breath weapons deal 6d8 points of damage and allow a Reflex save for half damage' (for Form of the Dragon I) - and being a Breath Weapon, this attack is not subjected to SR.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Would someone _finally_ fix the mistake (carried over from 3.0 and 3.5) on the light source/illumination table (7-10, p. 174) with regard to the duration of certain magical light sources?
The Daylight spell has a duration of 10 minutes/caster level (usually minimum 50 minutes), not a straight 30 minutes. The Light spell is also 10 minutes/caster level, not a straight 10 minutes.
Also: the light horse's speed is MV 60' according to table 7-9 on p. 174 (when compared with a MV 30' being as given on table 7-6 on p. 172).
The Bestiary only gives MV 50' for horses - both normal and heavy.
Would someone _finally_ fix the mistake (carried over from 3.0 and 3.5) on the light source/illumination table (7-10, p. 174) with regard to the duration of certain magical light sources?
The Daylight spell has a duration of 10 minutes/caster level (usually minimum 50 minutes), not a straight 30 minutes. The Light spell is also 10 minutes/caster level, not a straight 10 minutes.
Also: the light horse's speed is MV 60' according to table 7-9 on p. 174 (when compared with a MV 30' being as given on table 7-6 on p. 172).
The Bestiary only gives MV 50' for horses - both normal and heavy.
You are quite right about the Daylight spell being minimum of 50 min. However, the minimum duration of Light is 10 min., that's is probably why they listed that. I do think it should either list the conditional nature of the caster level, or not be listed at all.
Regarding your second point, I think I follow what you are getting at, however, I think you missed something. The table on 174 lists the light horse speed overland as 6 miles per hour, which equates to a walking speed of 60 feet. The 6 miles per hour listed under 30 foot speed on page 172 is the Hustle rate. You are probably thinking that if the horse is just moving, then it moves twice per round; a logical conclusion. However, as was established way back in 3.0 discussions with designers, walking is ONE move action per round. Double move is more of a jog.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Also: the light horse's speed is MV 60' according to table 7-9 on p. 174 (when compared with a MV 30' being as given on table 7-6 on p. 172).
The Bestiary only gives MV 50' for horses - both normal and heavy.
Regarding your second point, I think I follow what you are getting at, however, I think you missed something. The table on 174 lists the light horse speed overland as 6 miles per hour, which equates to a walking speed of 60 feet. The 6 miles per hour listed under 30 foot speed on page 172 is the Hustle rate. You are probably thinking that if the horse is just moving, then it moves twice per round; a logical conclusion. However, as was established way back in 3.0 discussions with designers, walking is ONE move action per round. Double move is more of a jog.
Thanks for your answers, but I don't think that you quite got the point of my comment on the horse speeds. While the horse's speed when single moving and double moving are important, I'm equally focused upon the hourly/daily movement (lots of overland travel in my campaigns). Table 7-9 is the only place in the PFCR which references the horse's speed, and that is done only through the distance covered per hour/per day calculations.
The 6 miles per hour hustle (double move) listed under the MV 30' on table 7-6 on p. 172 is irrelevant, as no mount can keep up a hustle for that long without taking lethal damage (see Mounted Movement, p. 171). (There's a reason why horse races are usually less than two miles - horses are sprinters, not marathon runners.) Even humanoids start to take non-lethal damage and become fatigued when hustling for more than an hour. When covering long distances (by the hour or day), mounts and people usually walk. The main advantages of a mount (for travel purposes) are a faster base walking speed than humanoids, and a better carrying capacity than humanoids - not the ability to gallop even faster for short distances.
So that's why I was only looking at the distances covered by walking for an hour or a day. Table 7-6 lists 3 miles/hour and 24 miles/day for speed 30' (e.g., an unencumbered human). Table 7-9 lists 6 miles/hour and 48 miles/day for unencumbered light horses. By that logic, an unencumbered light horse must have a speed of 60' (or 120' when hustling) on a local scale.
But the Bestiary only lists speed 50' for horses.
Hence my puzzlement. Is the speed 60' another relic from 3.x, only surviving by means of cut-and-paste methods?
Typo: Page 151
Buckler cost should be 5 gp, not 15 gp.
This is actually a carry over typo from 3.5. Note that the price is out of scale compared to the other shields, and that the price for a Darkwood buckler (page 467) correctly calculates the buckler cost as 5gp. (5 lb. * 10gp/lb = 50gp + 5gp buckler base cost + 150gp masterwork = 205gp)
okay....I misunderstood you because of this:
Also: the light horse's speed is MV 60' according to table 7-9 on p. 174 (when compared with a MV 30' being as given on table 7-6 on p. 172).
I get what you are saying now. It does appear, like so many artifacts in Pathfinder, to be carried over directly from the SRD.
Typo: Page 151
Buckler cost should be 5 gp, not 15 gp.
This is actually a carry over typo from 3.5. Note that the price is out of scale compared to the other shields, and that the price for a Darkwood buckler (page 467) correctly calculates the buckler cost as 5gp. (5 lb. * 10gp/lb = 50gp + 5gp buckler base cost + 150gp masterwork = 205gp)
Although disappointing, I don't really blame Paizo for this oversight. However, I can't believe after 4 YEARS of D&D 3.5 (and 3 years of 3.0 before that) that WotC never fixed this kind of crap in their own Standard Reference Document.
Typo: Page 151
Buckler cost should be 5 gp, not 15 gp.
This is actually a carry over typo from 3.5. Note that the price is out of scale compared to the other shields, and that the price for a Darkwood buckler (page 467) correctly calculates the buckler cost as 5gp. (5 lb. * 10gp/lb = 50gp + 5gp buckler base cost + 150gp masterwork = 205gp)
While I agree there's a discrepancy between the buckler and darkwood buckler prices, I don't know what you mean by "out of scale". If you used a price of 5 gp, it'd be cheaper than a light steel shield even though it's clearly better.
Typo: Page 151
Buckler cost should be 5 gp, not 15 gp.
This is actually a carry over typo from 3.5. Note that the price is out of scale compared to the other shields, and that the price for a Darkwood buckler (page 467) correctly calculates the buckler cost as 5gp. (5 lb. * 10gp/lb = 50gp + 5gp buckler base cost + 150gp masterwork = 205gp)
Please note two things regarding this.
1) A buckler's price has always been 15 gp, since the 3.0 Player's Handbook (I know it for certain because I possess all the three manuals and I just double-checked - 3.0 PHB, 3.5 PHB, and PRPG). Also, during 8+ years of 3.x Edition I downloaded all the errata for PHB 3.0 and PHB 3.5, and never was mentioned an errata regarding Bucklers.
2) A Darkwood Buckler is not a Buckler. Yup, that's right, it's a Light Wooden Shield. Just check the full description:
"Darkwood Buckler
Aura no aura (nonmagical); CL —
Slot shield; Price 205 gp; Weight 2.5 lbs.
Description
This nonmagical light wooden shield is made out of darkwood. It has no enhancement bonus, but its construction material makes it lighter than a normal wooden shield. It has no armor check penalty."
Plus, as hogarth noticed above, a buckler is definitely an improved version of a Light Wooden Shield (same AC bonus, same Armor Check penalty, same Arcane Spell Failure, BUT allows to use actively the hand without having to remove the shield); why should it cost less ?
As a side note however, the price of the Darkwood Buckler is indeed wrong, since (being based on the Light Wooden Shield) it should be 203 gp, not 205 (the error was still present on the 3.5 DMG and the SRD, though).
A buckler is worse than a light shield because you can't bash with it.
Whatever, the discrepancies regardless of which part is right, hopefully will be resolved.