I see little to no problem with this combo.
It's actually much cooler sounding than going to the Harry Potter wand shop and buying a CLW wand every week.
"In the name of the holy one, we make this small sacrifice in the hopes that he will grant us continued life."
*burns a lively looking leaf*
"And now the life of this small wonder becomes one with you. Let us give thanks to the holy one for his gifts."
VS
I poke him with my magic stick over and over again.
... I poke him with my magic stick over and over again.
That's talking dirty. :D
Actually, if he's simply changing the text of the feat for PFS play, but no errata is to be issued, then this is probably the most inelegant solution possible. This creates two different rules. One - the printed rule, and two - the unprinted rule as updated in a document that previously contained no rewordings of any other feats.
The elegant solution, if Mark feels that the feat as printed is too powerful for PFS play is to simply disallow it. This is the established procedure that Paizo staff has used for feats that they did not want in PFS play.
...
By now there are probably already a dozen different rules in play with regard to the Glorious Heat feat, since GMs have the power to allow/disallow/modify any content in their campaign.
Pathfinder Society Organized Play is Mark and Hyrum's campaign and you should trust them to make what they consider the most appropiate solution for this particular campaign.
Finally arguing that something should not be done simply because it has never been done before is an argument that would have us all living in caves this day.
Actually, I didn't say that it shouldn't be done. I said that it was the opposite of elegant.
It's a kludge. Kludges happen. I write kludges into software all of the time. I don't label them as elegant, when they are not. They are a way of getting something done because (generally) something else is farked up.
"elegant - graceful in form or movement"
"kludge - software or hardware configuration that, while inelegant, inefficient, clumsy, or patched together, succeeds in solving a specific problem or performing a particular task."
The implied "clarification" more closely fits the definition of "kludge", than it does the definition of "elegant".
Elegant? Useless might be a better word. At least for clerics. Oracles of Flame might have some use for it.
Please elaborate.
Were we to reprint the book, we would change the Glorious Heat feat to grant the fire spell's spell level in healing instead of character level. This keeps unlimited use orisons from being spammed, and 1st level spells from being abused at higher levels.
We, players with lantent psychic abilities and homegrown prophets, want to thank you for being so easy to predict.
Actually, I didn't say that it shouldn't be done. I said that it was the opposite of elegant.
It's a kludge. Kludges happen. I write kludges into software all of the time. I don't label them as elegant, when they are not. They are a way of getting something done because (generally) something else is farked up.
"elegant - graceful in form or movement"
"kludge - software or hardware configuration that, while inelegant, inefficient, clumsy, or patched together, succeeds in solving a specific problem or performing a particular task."The implied "clarification" more closely fits the definition of "kludge", than it does the definition of "elegant".
Ok. To me you came through quite harsh, but now I understand that was not your intention.
... I poke him with my magic stick over and over again.That's talking dirty. :D
Also, with the new combo you end up with less dirty jokes at the table like this one.
I don't see how this is a bad thing.
You save a few thousand gold over the course of your adventuring career, which in itself is NOT worth a feat and definitely NOT broken.
The only good argument I've heard against it, is how it somewhat invalidates traps (assuming you have dungeons in which the occupants don't immediately run in to see what set off the trap).
I see little to no problem with this combo.
It's actually much cooler sounding than going to the Harry Potter wand shop and buying a CLW wand every week.
"In the name of the holy one, we make this small sacrifice in the hopes that he will grant us continued life."
*burns a lively looking leaf*
"And now the life of this small wonder becomes one with you. Let us give thanks to the holy one for his gifts."
VS
I poke him with my magic stick over and over again.
No reason why you can't make casting a cure spell from a wand just as fluffy. That's in the hands of the player. The problem with this combo was a mechanical one.
|
The number of cleric spells with the fire descriptor is rather limited. Unless you want to summon masses of fire elementals.
If you spend a limited resource like a feat on something, you want to get as much use out of it as possible. Oracles of flame have a much greater selection of fire spells than a cleric, even if the cleric has the fire domain (since that's only one spell per spell level).
... I poke him with my magic stick over and over again.That's talking dirty. :DAlso, with the new combo you end up with less dirty jokes at the table like this one.
I don't see how this is a bad thing.
You save a few thousand gold over the course of your adventuring career, which in itself is NOT worth a feat.
Veritas.
The only real draw of this feat is the savings in bookkeeping which eats table time.
If you take this feat, then out-of-combat healing becomes handwaved, rather than "tick 6/tick 8/tick 4/tick 5 Healed yet? No? tick 6 okay? Yeah, that's five charges, so 750/50 at 15gp per charge, we need to reimburse me 75gp out of party funds towards the next wand." Yeah, there's a minute of game time that could have been spent on role play, rather than double entry accounting.
|
|
The only good argument I've heard against it, is how it somewhat invalidates traps (assuming you have dungeons in which the occupants don't immediately run in to see what set off the trap).
Only slightly more than wands of CLW. Hp Attrition doesn't really work with Pathfinder.
If you want the traps to have an impact, you make them either1. deadly or
2. part of a larger encounter.
Otherwise the trap will just slightly reduce the profit margin of the party.
... I poke him with my magic stick over and over again.That's talking dirty. :DAlso, with the new combo you end up with less dirty jokes at the table like this one.
...
How is that a good thing? :)
The only good argument I've heard against it, is how it somewhat invalidates traps (assuming you have dungeons in which the occupants don't immediately run in to see what set off the trap).Only slightly more than wands of CLW. Hp Attrition doesn't really work with Pathfinder.
If you want the traps to have an impact, you make them either
1. deadly or
2. part of a larger encounter.Otherwise the trap will just slightly reduce the profit margin of the party.
If you want a trap to really affect a party, you make it do something other than hit point damage. Stat damage,requiring lesser restoration (oh look, first level paladin spell - it's on a wand), fear effects, teleportation effects, mind control effects, are all much better choices than hp damage.
... I poke him with my magic stick over and over again.That's talking dirty. :DAlso, with the new combo you end up with less dirty jokes at the table like this one.
I don't see how this is a bad thing.
You save a few thousand gold over the course of your adventuring career, which in itself is NOT worth a feat.
Veritas.
The only real draw of this feat is the savings in bookkeeping which eats table time.
If you take this feat, then out-of-combat healing becomes handwaved, rather than "tick 6/tick 8/tick 4/tick 5 Healed yet? No? tick 6 okay? Yeah, that's five charges, so 750/50 at 15gp per charge, we need to reimburse me 75gp out of party funds towards the next wand." Yeah, there's a minute of game time that could have been spent on role play, rather than double entry accounting.
I must point out, that direct economic reimbursement is not possible in PFS games.
I must point out, that direct economic reimbursement is not possible in PFS games.... I poke him with my magic stick over and over again.That's talking dirty. :DAlso, with the new combo you end up with less dirty jokes at the table like this one.
I don't see how this is a bad thing.
You save a few thousand gold over the course of your adventuring career, which in itself is NOT worth a feat.
Veritas.
The only real draw of this feat is the savings in bookkeeping which eats table time.
If you take this feat, then out-of-combat healing becomes handwaved, rather than "tick 6/tick 8/tick 4/tick 5 Healed yet? No? tick 6 okay? Yeah, that's five charges, so 750/50 at 15gp per charge, we need to reimburse me 75gp out of party funds towards the next wand." Yeah, there's a minute of game time that could have been spent on role play, rather than double entry accounting.
Yep. This is the rules section, not the pfs section. The thread is taking divergent paths.
Regarding PFS play specifically - the ability of a cleric to handwave out-of-combat healing could lead to a lot less of the "can you use some of the charges on your wand of CLW on me?" "Jeez, you're mooching worse than a Vow of Poverty monk!! Bring your own damned wand to the next adventure. For now, suck it up and keep moving."
|
|
If you want a trap to really affect a party, you make it do something other than hit point damage. Stat damage,requiring lesser restoration (oh look, first level paladin spell - it's on a wand), fear effects, teleportation effects, mind control effects, are all much better choices than hp damage.
True. But those advanced traps aren't marginalized by Glorious Heat and Spark either.
If you want a trap to really affect a party, you make it do something other than hit point damage. Stat damage,requiring lesser restoration (oh look, first level paladin spell - it's on a wand), fear effects, teleportation effects, mind control effects, are all much better choices than hp damage.True. But those advanced traps aren't marginalized by Glorious Heat and Spark either.
Agreed. There's not a lot of powergaming to hand-waved OOC healing (especially at level 5+, which is the prerequisite of the feat).
If you're GMing, and you don't want your party to simply heal up and press on, then you need to make the wand of CLW harder to find/buy as well. If you do that, then your are having to deal with the 15-minute workday.
If you are simply trying to limit player wealth, then as a GM, you can do that anyway. Simply keep in mind how much healing they have been hand-waving, and remove that much treasure from the adventure. It's well within your power as GM.
|
|
If you want a trap to really affect a party, you make it do something other than hit point damage. Stat damage,requiring lesser restoration (oh look, first level paladin spell - it's on a wand), fear effects, teleportation effects, mind control effects, are all much better choices than hp damage.True. But those advanced traps aren't marginalized by Glorious Heat and Spark either.Agreed. There's not a lot of powergaming to hand-waved OOC healing (especially at level 5+, which is the prerequisite of the feat).
If you're GMing, and you don't want your party to simply heal up and press on, then you need to make the wand of CLW harder to find/buy as well. If you do that, then your are having to deal with the 15-minute workday.
If you are simply trying to limit player wealth, then as a GM, you can do that anyway. Simply keep in mind how much healing they have been hand-waving, and remove that much treasure from the adventure. It's well within your power as GM.
I couldn't agree more. I'm afraid, though, that there are some people who don't. I happen to know (and am even related to) people who still think that mystic theurge and eldritch knight are overpowered ...
I'm DMing Kingmaker at the moment, so most of the time the party only has one fight per day. The characters recently reached fifth level, but I doubt the druid will take Glorious Heat instead of another slightly popular druid feat.
Elegant? Useless might be a better word. At least for clerics. Oracles of Flame might have some use for it.And this is bad how? It was a cheap, cheese-twink use of the feat to begin with. The ruling is in the name of balance, a mainstay of Pathfinder play (double true for Society play).
ROFL!! Good one.
[and yet, Antagonize feat remains legal as written...]
[and Terrible Remorse remains legal as written...]
Awesome!! Balance!! I'll remember that one. (Marking as one of my favorites now...)
|
|
Elegant? Useless might be a better word. At least for clerics. Oracles of Flame might have some use for it.And this is bad how? It was a cheap, cheese-twink use of the feat to begin with. The ruling is in the name of balance, a mainstay of Pathfinder play (double true for Society play).
In the name of balance? Really? Balance is about as overrated as justice.
You might want to read the discussion above between Ravingdork, Fozzy Hammer and me. You might learn something.
Director of Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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, but that is a topic for another thread.
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.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
ROFL!! Good one.
[and yet, Antagonize feat remains legal as written...]
[and Terrible Remorse remains legal as written...]Awesome!! Balance!! I'll remember that one. (Marking as one of my favorites now...)
Actually, those are slated to be re-worked as soon as they push out the first revision to UM. They are already aware of the problems (Terrible Remorse will be changed to be more balanced), and will be corrected.
/Take a look at all the errors folks in the community found in that one thread. It'll get done, but there's a lot of factors at play (time to fix all the errors, deciding how many books you produce on the 2nd run, cost of all those changes, etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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, but that is a topic for another thread.
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.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well, this begs the question - What cost for unlimited out-of-combat healing isn't "just too good."?
You can accomplish the same thing with the "fixed" version by using Magical Lineage trait and Heighten Spell.
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?
(Why am I reminded of the Winston Churchill/Lady Astor story of "Madame, I know what you are - what we are discussing is price."?)
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.
If this cost is too low, and the heighten spell/magical lineage is still too low, then what is an adequate cost?
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, but that is a topic for another thread.
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.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingWell, this begs the question - What cost for unlimited out-of-combat healing isn't "just too good."?
You can accomplish the same thing with the "fixed" version by using Magical Lineage trait and Heighten Spell.
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?
(Why am I reminded of the Winston Churchill/Lady Astor story of "Madame, I know what you are - what we are discussing is price."?)
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.
If this cost is too low, and the heighten spell/magical lineage is still too low, then what is an adequate cost?
Further:
I mean really, according to Wondrous Item creation guidelines, duplicating a first level spell in a command word wondrous item should cost
Caster Level x Spell Level x 1800gp.
So for CLW on a Command-Word item, we should be able to pay 1800, and never have to worry about replacing the wand.
So what is the GP cost for a feat in order for it to be considered balanced with a magic item that could simply be crafted, given Craft Wondrous Item?
|
|
Well, this begs the question - What cost for unlimited out-of-combat healing isn't "just too good."?
You can accomplish the same thing with the "fixed" version by using Magical Lineage trait and Heighten Spell.
I don't think that would be legal.
You can cast spells as if they were a higher level
The spell level of Spark is still a 0-level spell. It's just with heighten that it gets treated as if it were a higher spell level (for purposes of DCs, ability to penetrate things). The ruling still goes by the spell level, not the effective spell level as per heighten.
Well, this begs the question - What cost for unlimited out-of-combat healing isn't "just too good."?
You can accomplish the same thing with the "fixed" version by using Magical Lineage trait and Heighten Spell.
I don't think that would be legal.
You can cast spells as if they were a higher levelThe spell level of Spark is still a 0-level spell. It's just with heighten that it gets treated as if it were a higher spell level (for purposes of DCs, ability to penetrate things). The ruling still goes by the spell level, not the effective spell level as per heighten.
You quoted the fluff, and not the rule.
A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level. The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level.
I'm not sure what you would call the 1hp/spell level of the "clarification", if not an "effect dependent on spell level".
[edit: Ninja'd!]
|
|
Well, this begs the question - What cost for unlimited out-of-combat healing isn't "just too good."?
You can accomplish the same thing with the "fixed" version by using Magical Lineage trait and Heighten Spell.
I don't think that would be legal.
You can cast spells as if they were a higher levelThe spell level of Spark is still a 0-level spell. It's just with heighten that it gets treated as if it were a higher spell level (for purposes of DCs, ability to penetrate things). The ruling still goes by the spell level, not the effective spell level as per heighten.
How about Merciful Burning Hands with Magical Lineage then? It's effective spell level might be zero, making it an orison, but it would still be a first level spell.
How about Merciful Burning Hands with Magical Lineage then? It's effective spell level might be zero, making it an orison, but it would still be a first level spell.Well, this begs the question - What cost for unlimited out-of-combat healing isn't "just too good."?
You can accomplish the same thing with the "fixed" version by using Magical Lineage trait and Heighten Spell.
I don't think that would be legal.
You can cast spells as if they were a higher levelThe spell level of Spark is still a 0-level spell. It's just with heighten that it gets treated as if it were a higher spell level (for purposes of DCs, ability to penetrate things). The ruling still goes by the spell level, not the effective spell level as per heighten.
Which brings to mind my favorite part of Real Genius(1985):
HOPSFIELD
No, these are entries for McDonald's Sweepstakes. No purchase necessary. Enter as often as you want. So, I am.
CHRIS
Really?
HOPSFIELD
This box makes it one million, six hundred thousand. I should win thirty two point six percent of the prizes, including the car.
CHRIS
Kind of takes the fun out of it, doesn't it?
HOPSFIELD
I suppose so. But they set up the rules, and lately, I have come to realize that I have certain materialistic needs.
|
|
I thought they already ruled in another thread that you cannot use magical lineage + merciful to push a lvl 1 spell down to 0.
How about Merciful Burning Hands with Magical Lineage then? It's effective spell level might be zero, making it an orison, but it would still be a first level spell.
I only checked the prd and the society resources page. It gets kind of hard to follow any rule changes when they are buried somewhere in the board.
|
|
Alright, I'll play your game. Let's see if you can ACTUALLY do that assuming you're right.
Fine, Heighten a Spark to 1, you get to treat it as a 1st level spell. Without the Magical Lineage, you would have to use up 1st level spell slots for a Heighten Spark. In conjunction with Moreland's ruling, it's fine and doesn't cause you to have unlimited healing because you have a limited number for 1st level spell slots.
Alright, now let's say you take Magical Lineage (Spark). Well, what does that do when you apply it with Heighten. Ultimately, the DC for Spark (as well ability to penetrate lesser Globes) goes up. But effectively, the spell level is 0. With Moreland's ruling, you could use a Magical Lineage Heighten Spark all day, but it is taking up only a 0 level spell slot and therefore providing 0 healing when cast.
AKA it does not do what you think it does.
Alright, I'll play your game. Let's see if you can ACTUALLY do that assuming you're right.
Fine, Heighten a Spark to 1, you get to treat it as a 1st level spell. Without the Magical Lineage, you would have to use up 1st level spell slots for a Heighten Spark. In conjunction with Moreland's ruling, it's fine and doesn't cause you to have unlimited healing because you have a limited number for 1st level spell slots.
Alright, now let's say you take Magical Lineage (Spark). Well, what does that do when you apply it with Heighten. Ultimately, the DC for Spark (as well ability to penetrate lesser Globes) goes up. But effectively, the spell level is 0. With Moreland's ruling, you could use a Magical Lineage Heighten Spark all day, but it is taking up only a 0 level spell slot and therefore providing 0 healing when cast.
AKA it does not do what you think it does.
"All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level."
You keep ignoring this part. The heightened level is 1. All effects are calculated as a spell level of 1. The fact that the final adjusted level of the spell is zero does not alter the fact that you have heightened the level to 1 and that is the number that is used for level dependent effects.
Either the healing is an effect dependent on the spell level (according to the "clarification"), or it is not. If it is not, then why does the "clarification" use the word "spell level" in its text?
Of course, if you simply ignore the printed text, you can come up with any ruling you want.
So now we have a perceived powerful effect (free out-of-combat healing, as opposed to 1800gp for unlimited out-of-combat healing). We have a "clarification" to take this an make it more expensive. Look, it costs another feat. And a trait. And we still have at least one person appearing to argue that this is still too powerful.
I'm not sure which you would prefer to have, two feats and a trait, or 1800gp (oops. that's 900gp, if you have the item creation feat.) I'd pretty much prefer to spend the feats and a trait on something else, as money is pretty easy to come by, especially at level 5+.
|
|
"All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level."
You keep ignoring this part. The heightened level is 1. All effects are calculated as a spell level of 1. The fact that the final adjusted level of the spell is zero does not alter the fact that you have heightened the level to 1.
Of course, if you simply ignore the printed text, you can come up with any ruling you want.
I don't think anything has been ignored based on 2 things:
A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level. The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level.
So without Magical Lineage, you have to prepare Spark as a 1st level spell. Now, let's look at Magical Lineage.
One of your parents was a gifted spellcaster who not only used metamagic often, but also developed many magical items and perhaps even a new spell or two—and you have inherited a fragment of this greatness. Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell's final adjusted level.
This means, you can have Heighten Spark take up a 0 level spell slot. But since it is in the 0 level spell slot, doing that in conjunction with Glorious Heat (and Moreland's ruling) still means it only heals for 0 because the final adjust level (not taking into account DCs and other things) is 0.
But, I guess the only way you'll accept this is if you get Paizo to officially say this - which is totally your prerogative (just don't sit down at my PFS table before you get this ruling, because you won't like how I GM). But, due to my soothsayer powers, I'm going to hedge my bets and say the Heighten Metamagic - Magical Lineage - Glorious Heat cheese combo is going to get the same treatment as it's predecessor in this thread.
Alright, I'll play your game. Let's see if you can ACTUALLY do that assuming you're right.
Fine, Heighten a Spark to 1, you get to treat it as a 1st level spell. Without the Magical Lineage, you would have to use up 1st level spell slots for a Heighten Spark. In conjunction with Moreland's ruling, it's fine and doesn't cause you to have unlimited healing because you have a limited number for 1st level spell slots.
Alright, now let's say you take Magical Lineage (Spark). Well, what does that do when you apply it with Heighten. Ultimately, the DC for Spark (as well ability to penetrate lesser Globes) goes up. But effectively, the spell level is 0. With Moreland's ruling, you could use a Magical Lineage Heighten Spark all day, but it is taking up only a 0 level spell slot and therefore providing 0 healing when cast.
AKA it does not do what you think it does.
"All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level."
You keep ignoring this part. The heightened level is 1. All effects are calculated as a spell level of 1. The fact that the final adjusted level of the spell is zero does not alter the fact that you have heightened the level to 1 and that is the number that is used for level dependent effects.
Either the healing is an effect dependent on the spell level (according to the "clarification"), or it is not. If it is not, then why does the "clarification" use the word "spell level" in its text?
Of course, if you simply ignore the printed text, you can come up with any ruling you want.
So now we have a perceived powerful effect (free out-of-combat healing, as opposed to 1800gp for unlimited out-of-combat healing). We have a "clarification" to take this an make it more expensive. Look, it costs another feat. And a trait. And we still have at least one person appearing to argue that this is still too powerful.
I'm not sure...
Actually, the more I look at the comparison between Craft Wondrous Item and Glorious Heat, the more underpowered Glorious Heat appears to be.
With Craft Wondrous Item, I can simply make each person an Amulet that gives a continuous Infernal Healing effect. Spell level 1, Caster level 1, value 2000gp. Cost for creator 1000gp. So for 6000gp, I can outfit a party of six, and never have to worry about out of combat healing again.
Or I can go the cheap route, and make myself a Rock of Curing. Spell level 1, Caster level 1, Command word activated, value 1800gp. No item slot - double the value to 1800. Cost to create - 1800gp. I can heal everyone all day, every day. No accounting. No bookkeeping. No nasty "aura of evil" to upset the paladin.
And...
And...
I get to keep making cool wondrous items all career long!!!!
I get more and more economic advantage.
And I don't have to deal with anyone thinking a feat that allows spamming of what used to be a 0-level spell is overpowered.
1800gp. That's what you are valuing this feat at. And calling it overpowered.
That's less than an amulet of natural armor +1.
or a simple +1 sword.
But, I guess healers can't have nice things.
(Okay, that last bit was snarky.)
But, I guess the only way you'll accept this is if you get Paizo to officially say this - which is totally your prerogative (just don't sit down at my PFS table before you get this ruling, because you won't like how I GM). But, due to my soothsayer powers, I'm going to hedge my bets and say the Heighten Metamagic - Magical Lineage - Glorious Heat cheese combo is going to get the same treatment as it's predecessor in this thread.
Actually no. I'm pretty much a "If Paizo wanted to say it, they would have said it in the rules text" kind of guy. What some developer, be it James, Jason, Sean, whoever, says after the text is printed is pretty much irrelevant. Unless, and until they decide to issue errata.
Hunting through blog posts for some random comment from a developer is way too much effort when trying to play a game. The rules are what the rules say that they are.
If you want to rule otherwise at your table, I have absolutely no problem with that. As long as you make it clear up front where you have decided to ignore the printed text. Both of my Pathfinder GM's have documents where they outline where they differ from printed text. I have no problem with that. If I want to take a feat combination that I feel might have powerlevel problems, I'll try to bring this up as early as possible so that we all know what I'm planning, and I haven't wasted part of a character's career preparing for an ability that the GM will later shoot down. No problem at all.
There's rules. And there's opinion. The rules are in the book, and in the errata. The rest is opinion. No matter who is stating it.
I never realized Durkon and Roy got along so poorly.
I must learn to read between the lines in OotS.
I never realized Durkon and Roy got along so poorly.
I must learn to read between the lines in OotS.
One can discuss rules without disliking the person with whom one disagrees.
His being wrong in no way detracts from whatever other fine qualities that I'm sure he must possess.
|
Well, this begs the question - What cost for unlimited out-of-combat healing isn't "just too good."?
You can accomplish the same thing with the "fixed" version by using Magical Lineage trait and Heighten Spell.
If you apply metamagics to a orison/cantrip it stop being castable at will.
Edit: the old ruling I have found don't address the +0 level, but the spirit is the same. As soon as you apply a metamagic to a orison/cantrip it stop being a orison/cantrip and so stop being castable at will.
I never realized Durkon and Roy got along so poorly.
I must learn to read between the lines in OotS.
One can discuss rules without disliking the person with whom one disagrees.
I hope that is true, but in this thread you and Joe have take on a tone that is very unfriendly towards one another.
Considering that these boards are public and that most people enjoy the generally friendly atmosphere here, I think you should both take the intensity level a couple of notches down.
Hopefully we can keep discussing this in a more civil tone.
A lot of good points and suggestions for cheap healing have been made and this thread can remain useful if we all just play nice.
Actually, if he's simply changing the text of the feat for PFS play, but no errata is to be issued, then this is probably the most inelegant solution possible. This creates two different rules. One - the printed rule, and two - the unprinted rule as updated in a document that previously contained no rewordings of any other feats.
The elegant solution, if Mark feels that the feat as printed is too powerful for PFS play is to simply disallow it. This is the established procedure that Paizo staff has used for feats that they did not want in PFS play.
...
By now there are probably already a dozen different rules in play with regard to the Glorious Heat feat, since GMs have the power to allow/disallow/modify any content in their campaign.
Pathfinder Society Organized Play is Mark and Hyrum's campaign and you should trust them to make what they consider the most appropiate solution for this particular campaign.
Finally arguing that something should not be done simply because it has never been done before is an argument that would have us all living in caves this day.
Actually, I didn't say that it shouldn't be done. I said that it was the opposite of elegant.
It's a kludge. Kludges happen. I write kludges into software all of the time. I don't label them as elegant, when they are not. They are a way of getting something done because (generally) something else is farked up.
"elegant - graceful in form or movement"
"kludge - software or hardware configuration that, while inelegant, inefficient, clumsy, or patched together, succeeds in solving a specific problem or performing a particular task."The implied "clarification" more closely fits the definition of "kludge", than it does the definition of "elegant".
In terms of writing, an "elegant" solution to any problem is one where the desired effect is gained by the addition, deletion, or changing of a single word or punctuation mark, rather than having to revise, excise, or add additional paragraphs if not pages. Swapping "character level" to "spell level" is a change of a single word that addresses the possible abuses while not otherwise changing the feat. Ergo, elegant.
As for a kludge, I always thought that was an inelegant but serviceable patch on a greater problem. For example, my proposed solution of making it expend the 0 level spell would have been a kludge because while workable, it would have imposed an exemption to another rule and could have caused further problems down the line.
Mark's solution? Pick up the book, line out one word, write another above it, and you're done. That's elegant.
|
|
Actually no. I'm pretty much a "If Paizo wanted to say it, they would have said it in the rules text" kind of guy. What some developer, be it James, Jason, Sean, whoever, says after the text is printed is pretty much irrelevant. Unless, and until they decide to issue errata.
Hunting through blog posts for some random comment from a developer is way too much effort when trying to play a game. The rules are what the rules say that they are.
If you want to rule otherwise at your table, I have absolutely no problem with that. As long as you make it clear up front where you have decided to ignore the printed text. Both of my Pathfinder GM's have documents where they outline where they differ from printed text. I have no problem with that. If I want to take a feat combination that I feel might have powerlevel problems, I'll try to bring this up as early as possible so that we all know what I'm planning, and I haven't wasted part of a character's career preparing for an ability that the GM will later shoot down. No problem at all.
There's rules. And there's opinion. The rules are in the book, and in the errata. The rest is opinion. No matter who is stating it.
Well, the we will agree to disagree on issues regarding rules then. Printed rules are always open for interpretation, and this Rules forum is a perfect place to get clarifications on things and situations not expressly written down. If you wish to ignore developer inputs, then that is your personal choice. But you might run into GMs who do use those clarifications in how they run their games (myself being one of them).
/I'm curious how you will deal with the PFS FAQ that's being developed. It won't be specifically printed, but printed works will reference it as if it were printed and the rule set.
//I let my players know the outcomes of interesting rulings I find on the boards by linking them to them if they ask (sometimes when they don't ask).
///On a different topic, the only reason I thought the solution was elegant was due to the wording Mark chose, not to having to do an on-the-fly decision. His choices were much better than the one I discussed with a friend I had on this issue.
|
Director of Games
|
Actually no. I'm pretty much a "If Paizo wanted to say it, they would have said it in the rules text" kind of guy. What some developer, be it James, Jason, Sean, whoever, says after the text is printed is pretty much irrelevant. Unless, and until they decide to issue errata.
Hunting through blog posts for some random comment from a developer is way too much effort when trying to play a game. The rules are what the rules say that they are.
If you want to rule otherwise at your table, I have absolutely no problem with that. As long as you make it clear up front where you have decided to ignore the printed text. Both of my Pathfinder GM's have documents where they outline where they differ from printed text. I have no problem with that. If I want to take a feat combination that I feel might have powerlevel problems, I'll try to bring this up as early as possible so that we all know what I'm planning, and I haven't wasted part of a character's career preparing for an ability that the GM will later shoot down. No problem at all.
There's rules. And there's opinion. The rules are in the book, and in the errata. The rest is opinion. No matter who is stating it.
So.. when it comes to what you do at your home game, you are absolutely correct. What is posted here does not, by any means, have to make it to your game table. It is, after all, your game table. I'll even go one step further. Even once it is in a rulebook, it does not have to be a part of your game, so long as you and your players agree. Once again, its your game, do with it what you will.
However, if you are playing PFS, and the most current, up to date, PFS rules document says a certain rules works slightly differently, or not at all, then we expect you as a PFS player or GM to abide by that ruling. To work any other way is to invite chaos. If you want to debate this, I suggest you take it over to the PFS boards.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
Director of Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note to some of the other disagreements in this thread...
When pricing magic items (such as those that grant continuous or endless healing effects), remember that the formulas in the book are a guideline only (Core Rulebook, page 549, last paragraph) and that a GM should always compare an item against other similar items.
In this case, I suggest looking at the ring of regeneration which provides continuous healing. It costs 90,000 gp. I get why GMs handwave healing for story considerations, but from a purely rules perspective, such an ability is quite valuable.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
As a side note to some of the other disagreements in this thread...
When pricing magic items (such as those that grant continuous or endless healing effects), remember that the formulas in the book are a guideline only (Core Rulebook, page 549, last paragraph) and that a GM should always compare an item against other similar items.
In this case, I suggest looking at the ring of regeneration which provides continuous healing. It costs 90,000 gp. I get why GMs handwave healing for story considerations, but from a purely rules perspective, such an ability is quite valuable.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
You neglect to mention that ring of regen duplicates regeneration, a 7th level spell. Including halting bleed damage and restoring lost body parts.
As a 7th level spell that converts an instantaneous effect into a continuous effect the price is much more in line with the item creation guidelines.
You are using as an example of how valuable healing is by pointing to an item duplicating a much higher spell. Not really a good comparison.
Edit: a much better example might be the pearly white spindle ioun stone at 20k for 1 hp/10 minutes. Except, given the additional capabilities of ioun stones, thats even not directly on point.
Keep in mind there's no losing limbs in normal PF play, and the ring only works against injuries you suffer while it is worn. You can't slap it on a crippled man and expect his leg to be regrown, so that ability is moot.
ANY kind of magical healing stops bleed dmg, so THAT point is moot.
Which brings us down to 1 hp/rd of healing being the only really appropriate effect.
And your ring of continuous CLW is actually at least 5x as powerful as that, being roughly equivalent to Fast Healing 5.5.
1800 gp, I think not. The ring of unlimited CLW has been around since 3.0, and kept getting shot down then, too.
Rule #1: Compare to other items of similar effect.
THEN follow the pricing guidelines.
==Aelryinth