I have seen many claim that Ultimate Magic had bad editing, imbalanced content, and other nerd rage worthy problems. I have also heard some state that Ultimate Combat, though better, has its fair share of problems as well.
However, it seems nearly unanimous across the boards that Ultimate Combat is universally better than Ultimate Magic.
Why is this? I own and have read both books. I have seen the errata threads. I've plowed through dozens and dozens of threads both condemning and praising both books. I have read and written reviews.
In the end, I'm just not seeing how Ultimate Combat is any better than Ultimate Magic, or how Ultimate Magic is really even all that bad. They both have mistakes and seem relatively on par to me in terms of design.
So, what is it that everyone is talking about? What is it that makes Ultimate Combat SO much better than Ultimate Magic? I'm just not seeing it. The both look like perfectly comparable products.
I think both books are great, even if a little flawed--only a step behind the Advanced Player's Guide, which truly was magnificent.
|
I have read only a small part of the two books, but I already have the same opinion that UM is not so good and UC is better.
Why ?
Because I tried to find a few good things for my Ranger, my Sorcerer and a friend of mine's Druid. And the best spells I found (IMO) were in the APG and in UC. Not even in UM even though it is supposed to be focused on the power of magic.
Also, when I read this kind of books, I am looking for things that will help my current characters be more efficient or that will inspire me to create new characters. And that is mostly Feats and somewhat Archetypes. And UC is just chokeful of feats and also not so bad on Archetypes (especially for the Monk which I have always been quite fond of).
For me, currently APG>UC>>UM.
|
I find both books good, with UC being better by the virtue of having more base classes (3 vs. 1) and having less optional content (Words of Power doesn't float my boat and it takes a big chunk of the book).
Ravingdork, what you are seeing is that somewhere at UM launch a snowball of nerdrage appeared, and off it went. Without anybody really trying to contain it it spilled over, and you had folks bash the book before they even saw it - being negative is ALWAYS more natural than being positive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a number of issues right out the chute with UM. A couple that come to mind:
1. The product description advertised additional Oracle Curses. These were cut from release. This was one of the single biggest things I was looking for in the book. I didn't really feel that all that many additional Mysteries were needed. Curses, however, are one of the biggest plot hooks to a character (unless you took Lame to go with your medium armor).
2. Certain archetypes simply didn't work and were poorly edited. Look at the Hexblade. How many Grand Hexes do they get? Answer: Zero, unless you play past level 20. Why even put a bit in there about getting an ability if they do not actually get said ability in the supported content?
3. Archetypes that were simply bad, or badly written. Sea Witch is a great example. Mediocre abilities, only modest flavor, but a perfect example of kludge writing: you get to pick a patron, but the patron provides spells from the Sea Witch patron spell list...which is all 9 of them. Why not just say that there is a patron for Sea Witches?
4. Words of Power, while very innovative, was poorly tested. Selected Lengthy Intensified Corrosive Bolt is a great example of that. Sorry, RD. As much as I like it, it's obviously over the top. Also, buffs could be combined with instantaneous duration effects, meaning permanent, non-dispellable buffs...as written, at least. This resulted in 5th level Clerics giving hundreds of thousands of gold in terms of item equivalence to the party by giving each player +4 all stats indefinitely.
5. Bizarre multiclass synergy that is not built into the rest of the books exists in UM. Internal Alchemist, for example, does odd things with this. The synergy isn't even that good.
6. A number of the spells are simply there for narrowest-possible-niche use. Anthropomorphic Animal, for example, is very odd and seldom all that useful, save for fulfilling the furry requirement of the game. Ultimate Combat, however, took one of the few niches that it had going for it (dismounting riders) and one-upping it with Pup Shape, which you don't need to do a touch attack to cast and almost universally dismounts a rider just as well, along with completely screwing with animal companions.
What did I see, by comparison, in UC?
1. Flavorful archetypes, like the Cad, Flowing Monk, or Empyreal Knight, which allow for genuinely interesting characters.
2. More equipment with distinct flavoring (even if they did introduce 2 Eastern Armors that are number 1 choices for casters for defense).
3. A number of useful GM tools, such as Performance Combat and Vehicles.
4. Flavorful feats that fill out characters well.
5. A solid selection of spells, including the Communal spells that are deliciously awesome.
The simple fact is that the number of good things in UC far outnumbered the bad things. UM was, unfortunately, a substandard release with only a few real gems (Murderous Command, Split Hex feat), some of which only became gems after substantial errata (Scar Hex).
APG was wonderful, and I consider UC to be on par with it. APG was, however, much better edited prior to first printing.
Thank you for your thoughtful, in-depth reply Serisan. It was a refreshing refrain from the hate speech so often thrown my way.
I think part of it was perception. There's a sizable segment of the gaming community that resents casters being on top. They see the core book and the APG favoring casters, so UM is like a rich person winning the lottery. UC is/was their turn. In fact, a lot of the biggest complaints I noticed about UC was that there was caster content at all.
|
|
The latest review of UM is an example of the snowball effect. I particular, this sentence got me laughing:
"It is almost a crying shame that all the balancing in the core book is being destroyed by these rushed and un tested rule books."
The biggest balance problems are in Core Rulebook (hello, full casters!). If somebody thinks that APG/UM/UC are "destroying the balance" well, I'm lost for words.
I think UM had higher expectations since it was the first similar book after the APG, which I agree was extremely well done. UC didn't have to deal with similar high expectations.
UM and UC are not so much centered about power but more about versatility, which it does fairly well. I didnt care a bit about Words of Power in UM, in UC the optional rules, vehicles and guns do little for me. My biggest issue is that the books really are barely related to their thematic title, they might have called it Advanced Player Expansion I and II.
UC might be seeing a bit more practical use for players, UM seemed to have some more nice flavor and GM options, but altogether the books are very good, very few books from the 3.5 era compare to these books.
UM did however have me start looking at the new options and crunch put out by paizo more closely for potential houseruling or banning, while APG made it into my campaigns with nearly no modifications.
While i am a caster fan (but not a martial hater) i find UC better as whole book, it seemed more connected to me than UM did, sure the fact that it had less editing errors helped, it seemed more solid creation to me.
That said, i love both books, and most probably use more material from UM than UC only because i don't like neither guns nor eastern asian stuff in my games but i can't bash away a book simply because i don't like what it offers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally UM is okay but there are a few bits which I have houseruled away (the Antagonise feat and Terrible Remorse being the obvious ones). It's not awful but it's not as good as the APG.
In UC I have found nothing that gives me pause (yet). It's also not as good as the APG but it's still a fine book. It's a highly competent book with some good solid rules.
The APG is the best single sourcebook I have seen for any game in years. Every page has something I like on it. This is where Pathfinder went from being revised 3.5 to being Pathfinder.
So for me the APG is fantastic, UC is decent and solid, UM is OK with a few flaws.
None of these books are bad.
I think the biggest difference between UM and UC is that UM included a lot more material that was truly experimental, like the words of power, which by it's nature couldn't be as refined as some people would like. Neither the Words of Power nor the chapter on making your own spells went over very well, though I personally think that they are the sections that have the most potential to help rewrite the magic system, and those two things made up a big chunk of book once you get past the archetypes, feats, and spell lists. UC has less of a problem with it's material. There are people who don't care for this or that part of it, but there isn't nearly as much that could be considered particularly unnecessary or experimental.
Also, buffs could be combined with instantaneous duration effects, meaning permanent, non-dispellable buffs...as written, at least. This resulted in 5th level Clerics giving hundreds of thousands of gold in terms of item equivalence to the party by giving each player +4 all stats indefinitely.
I don't see this, I must be missing something, how do you figure?
I don't see this, I must be missing something, how do you figure?
Also, buffs could be combined with instantaneous duration effects, meaning permanent, non-dispellable buffs...as written, at least. This resulted in 5th level Clerics giving hundreds of thousands of gold in terms of item equivalence to the party by giving each player +4 all stats indefinitely.
Any instantaneous effects (like damage) don't fade over duration. Instantaneous is also the shortest duration. Since WoP forces the shortest duration in any combined Word Spell effects, if you couple a duration effect buff (like Enhance Body) with an instantaneous effect (like Stabilize), the buffs become instantaneous and, therefore, permanent until cured. There are no cures for harmless effects.
A good example of an instantaneous effect of similar nature in standard casting is Energy Drain. 2d4 permanent negative levels if the saves are failed. The problem is that there are no rules addressing this problem in the WoP system.
Anyway, the long and short of it is that the 5th level Cleric casts Enhance Body for each stat on all party members and companions. It's an enhancement bonus, so you look at item equivalencies. The cost of a +4 all stat item is 64k. I assume 4 or 5 players, meaning 256k-320k, plus any companions.
Personally I found the UM book to be the book I prefer which is odd seeing as I prefer playing combat types.
UC isn't a bad book but I was surprised to find I liked the UM book better.
I removed a post. Don't pick fights, please.
when I rate a book I like to look at all the content I'll use vs the content that I won't. Both books had extra sections with optional rules like words of power and blackpowder weapons, or binding outsiders and vehicle combat. In most cases the content I see myself using is in UC.
To me UM seemed like a far more specialized book, there was stuff in there for spell casting classes sure, but UC had stuff that every class could use. One other thing, when you buy a book called Ultimate Magic, would you expect magic items in it?
Now why would you expect there to be magic items in a book called ULTIMATE MAGI...wait...oh... ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep hearing this exploit with turning instants into permanent bonuses.
I will certainly grant that it could have been worded better, but to actually consider that in any sane game a 5th level cleric can grant the equivalent of four wishes with one spell is, to be blunt, crazy.
This is gaming the error, folks. Kind of like that other scam where a caster can get infinite actions in a round, and the old Tome of Battle one where two White Raven Tactics people could get infinite actions in a round.
We're not dealing with a perfect rules engine here - it's a framework - and there's a reason there's a GM sitting at the table.
Any sane GM would see someone trying that and just say "uh, no. Just no."
And I'm sure the char op player would then cry about what the rules say, but frankly, there's nothing in the rules that says you are allowed to ruin the game using shaky rules interpretations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any instantaneous effects (like damage) don't fade over duration. Instantaneous is also the shortest duration. Since WoP forces the shortest duration in any combined Word Spell effects, if you couple a duration effect buff (like Enhance Body) with an instantaneous effect (like Stabilize), the buffs become instantaneous and, therefore, permanent until cured.
I'd like a page reference for the section of Words of Power that changes the definition of "instantaneous" to mean the same as "permanent." If bull's strength had an instantaneous duration, would you think it lasted forever, or would you think it was a pointless spell that gave you +4 to Str for an instant and then ended, returning your Str to its normal value? Fireball has an instantaneous duration, that doesn't mean the spell fills the entire area with fire, forever, which can't be dispelled because there's no magic involved in it any more.
Any instantaneous effects (like damage) don't fade over duration. Instantaneous is also the shortest duration. Since WoP forces the shortest duration in any combined Word Spell effects, if you couple a duration effect buff (like Enhance Body) with an instantaneous effect (like Stabilize), the buffs become instantaneous and, therefore, permanent until cured.I'd like a page reference for the section of Words of Power that changes the definition of "instantaneous" to mean the same as "permanent." If bull's strength had an instantaneous duration, would you think it lasted forever, or would you think it was a pointless spell that gave you +4 to Str for an instant and then ended, returning your Str to its normal value? Fireball has an instantaneous duration, that doesn't mean the spell fills the entire area with fire, forever, which can't be dispelled because there's no magic involved in it any more.
Ooo...burned. By a fireball-example no less! XD
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Any instantaneous effects (like damage) don't fade over duration. Instantaneous is also the shortest duration.
Instantaneous means there is an effect (a ball of fire) which is over in an instant. There is no residual magic after the effect. Many instantaneous effects cause damage, which is permanent, but the effect is instant.
Wall of stone instantly creates a wall of stone, but the wall itself is not magic.
As far as I know no spells withduration instantaneous have lingering magic effects (such as an enhancement bonus) and if they do, they are wrong.
I'd like a page reference for the section of Words of Power that changes the definition of "instantaneous" to mean the same as "permanent." If bull's strength had an instantaneous duration, would you think it lasted forever, or would you think it was a pointless spell that gave you +4 to Str for an instant and then ended, returning your Str to its normal value? Fireball has an instantaneous duration, that doesn't mean the spell fills the entire area with fire, forever, which can't be dispelled because there's no magic involved in it any more.
The rules lay in those of instantaneous durations. The magic from fireballs creates fire and then quickly dissipates. The burns the fire creates, however, do not go away with the magic. The magic of an instantaneous bull's strength would increase strength, then the magic would go away, leaving behind the result of increased strength.
The logic between the two examples is identical.
I can kinda see where your interpretation is coming from, but please don't pretend that the rules are clear when they are not. It's akin to calling us idiots for thinking otherwise, and it's insulting.
Apples and oranges, you may like both, or just one, or one a bit more than the other.
Both books contain good stuff. It really depends what character you are currently playing and what characters the books inspire you to play in the future.
I only play in one game each week but wish I could try out all sorts of alternative builds and classes. Both books get thumbs up from me regardless of how much material in either I end up using. Options are king, and they both offer them in spades.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules lay in those of instantaneous durations. The magic from fireballs creates fire and then quickly dissipates. The burns the fire creates, however, do not go away with the magic. The magic of an instantaneous bull's strength would increase strength, then the magic would go away, leaving behind the result of increased strength.
The logic between the two examples is identical.
Except
"there is no magic here anymore, but the burns from the magic fire somehow still persists"and
"there is no magic here anymore, but the enhanced strength from your magic strength spell somehow still persists"
require different levels of logic--the second one requires you to be incredibly obtuse as to how magic works.
Core Rulebook, Magic chapter:
"Might" meaning "we can't detail every example of instantaneous magic and say whether or not it is long-lasting, mainly because we have a limited amount of space and we expect the GM is not a robot and has a reasonable idea of whether or not the consequences of a particular instantaneous spell should be long-lasting."
Other than damage-causing spells and cure spells, here's a selection of instantaneous-duration spells from the Core Rulebook. Do some of these have long-lasting consequences? Yes. Is it obvious that those consequences are not ongoing magical effects that can be dispelled? Yes.
animate dead: the spell creates a new monster, and that monster doesn't instantly revert to a corpse once the spell is done, and can't be dispelled
atonement: spell removes an existing penalty, and there isn't an ongoing "I removed your penalty" effect on the target that you could dispel
augury: the spell gives you information and that info isn't magically stored in your brain as a magical "data chunk," it's just like any other memory, and trying to dispel it has no effect
banishment: the spell sends a creature away, there is no lingering "I have been sent away" debuff on the monster that you can dispel
bless water: the spell creates a nonmagical object (holy water), which can't be dispelled.
break enchantment: similar to atonement, this instantly ends an effect, and while "I no longer have a curse or enchantment on me" persists, without a duration, that's not a magical effect you can dispel
contagion: the target contracts a (nonmagical) disease that persists as if the target had contracted it nonmagically, there's nothing to dispel on the target
dimension door: the target is transported and the magic then ends, there isn't a "I was in Magnimar a minute ago but now I'm in Sandpoint" lingering effect on the target that can be dispelled
dispel magic: the spell destroys an existing magical effect and then it's done, it isn't an ongoing "I'm a specialized antimagic field that only works on one specific magical effect on this dude" debuff that could be dispelled.
For the specific example of the enhance body word of power, it has a duration (1 round/level), so clearly it's intended to be a *temporary* buffing spell. Why, if you linked it to an instantaneous spell, would you think a *temporary* buffing spell would last forever and be undispellable because "instantaneous" can sometimes mean "creates a forever alteration to a creature or object that persists without magic and can't be dispelled"? Why would linking a *temporary* buffing spell to an instantaneous spell make the *temporary* buff become better than a permanent (dispellable) buffing spell? Why would you think sticking a low-level instantaneous word onto a 2nd-level round-based buffing word would let you create a permanent, undispellable buff?
It's a deliberate misinterpretation of how effects do work and should work. Stop it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Fire is a magical effect, you get non-magical burns from that effect. Those non-magical burns last until healed. Magical strength is an effect, there is no nothing about it that is non-magical.
If you get burned by a fireball and walk into an anti-magic field you are still burned. If you cast bulls strength and walk into an anti-magic field you are no longer magically strong.
If you cast dispel magic on a fireball burn victim, he is STILL burned. If you cast dispel magic on a person with bulls strength he no longer has bulls strength.
All of these things are obvious to anyone who has played the game for more than a month. I'm not sure what makes you think that somehow magical strength would last after the duration of the spell has ended. Because to me it's pretty damned obvious.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Fly is a magical effect, like with ANY magical effect it ends when the duration of the spell ends.
"You awaken a tree or animal to human-like sentience."
Awaken does not cause a lingering magical effect, you do not magically enhance it's intelligence for a period of time, you alter it's very nature. Awaken cannot be reverse by dispel magic, or anything shy of Wish.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can I tell that this spell functions differently with respect to the duration of the effect than Awaken?
Why would you think that soaring, which lasts 1 minute/level, would somehow last forever and be undispellable if combined with an instantaneous cure spell?
It's clear to you that if you cast a regular soaring spell, that its duration will eventually run out and you won't be able to fly anymore. Yes?
It's clear to you that if you cast a regular soaring spell, that if dispelled before that duration, you won't be able to fly any more. Yes?
So why, if you link soaring to another spell that happens to have an instantaneous duration, would you think that the soaring spell suddenly becomes forever and nondispellable, even though *nothing* in soaring's description would indicate that and none of the component words of selected soaring lesser cure spells say anything about *increasing* its duration?
Are you a robot? No. Then stop trying to parse this with robot-logic and admit that combining a flash-bang consequences-are-forever spell with a duration-based buff spell DOES NOT result in a consequences-are-forever buff spell, and that trying to interpret it that way is being dishonest.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Fly is a magical effect, like with ANY magical effect it ends when the duration of the spell ends.
"You awaken a tree or animal to human-like sentience."
Awaken does not cause a lingering magical effect, you do not magically enhance it's intelligence for a period of time, you alter it's very nature. Awaken cannot be reverse by dispel magic, or anything shy of Wish.
"The target [...] gains a fly speed of 60 feet with average maneuverability (40 feet if encumbered or wearing medium or heavy armor)."
Selected Soaring Lesser Cure does not cause a lingering magical effect, you do not magically enhance it's ability to fly for a period of time, you alter it's very nature. Selected Soaring Lesser Cure cannot be reverse by dispel magic, or anything shy of Wish.
Why can I not make this argument as well?
Forgive me, for a moment I thought you were asking an honest question.
How would I reproduce an Awaken type effect or a Wall of Stone type effect spell using the Words of Power system?
You probably can't. WOP is designed to be weaker, but more versatile than standard Vancian spellcasting from the Core Rulebook. There are some CR spells that you can't reproduce with WOP--at least, not with the words published in UM (the door is open for someone else to design additional words).
How are the two situations not parallel?
Because neither the flying spell nor the Intelligence spell is permanent, and (IIRC) there are no options in the WOP rules that let you turn a duration-based spell (such as rounds/level or minutes/level) into a permanent spell, therefore sticking two WOP spells together shouldn't let you make a permanent spell.
If standard Vancian casting greatly limits what spells you can make permanent with permanency, why do you think that sticking a 1st-level instantaneous spell onto a duration-based spell lets you make any duration-based spell permanent?
Or, to look at it another way, if enhance form+lesser cure = permanent ability score bonus, why doesn't winter's wrath+lesser cure = area of permanent round-by-round cold damage? Why doesn't crush will+lesser cure = permanent target enslavement? Why doesn't boost+disappear+lesser cure = permanent invisibility?
It's a ridiculous interpretation. You know its a ridiculous interpretation. Stop trying to act like you don't know it's a ridiculous interpretation.
As a user, lacking the ability to read your or other developer's minds, would it not be reasonable for me to want to duplicate an awaken type spell, or wall of stone type spell when approaching the Words of Power type system which bills itself as a more flexible magical system variant?
You don't have to read our minds, you just have to read the text that's given to you in the chapter.
Words of Power in the World (sidebar, page 164): "Words of power represent a primal form of magic used in ages past. As such, use of the words of power system is rare these days, and its practitioners tend to be masters of esoteric lore. Words of power constitute a root system, from which all modern magic descends. Although powerful, this system is more primitive in some ways than modern magic. Flexible, but lacking the refinement of modern spells, this system allows spellcasters to shape magic in ways they never could before, while simultaneously preventing them from producing the same sort of incredibly specific effects that ordinary spellcasters master."
You're deliberately being obtuse, and I'm not going to engage in this discussion anymore because you're not willing to discuss this honestly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a deliberate misinterpretation of how effects do work and should work. Stop it.
You're asking me to RAI rather than RAW. That is my objection to the editing of Ultimate Magic, right there. Any possible confusion with this could have been summed up like so:
Effect Words with duration longer than instantaneous cannot be paired with Effect Words with a duration of instantaneous.
18 words. 121 characters. I'm sure it could have been squeezed in there.
My gaming group has opted out of the Words of Power system, and part of the reason is that it felt like a house rule to do what is obviously intended.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're asking me to RAI rather than RAW.
No, I'm asking you to stop deliberately misinterpreting how instantaneous effects work in the game.
why doesn't winter's wrath+lesser cure = area of permanent round-by-round cold damage?
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Fortitude half; Spell Resistance yes
Target Restrictions burst
School conjuration (healing); Level alchemist 1, bard 1, cleric 1, druid 1, inquisitor 1, paladin 1, ranger 2, witch 1
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will half (harmless) or Will half; Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
Target Restrictions personal, selected
Because it's an invalid Effect Word pairing.
Because it's an invalid Effect Word pairing.
My point is there are plenty of other combos like this which, according to your interpretation, should be rules-legal, last forever, and be undispellable. But you know your interpretation is relying on a dishonest interpretation of how the instantaneous duration works.
For me UC was a better book also it came down to the following:
1. Crunch versus Fluff -- Perhaps I should say Crunch versus crunch that isn't really useful... such as prewritten spell books. Honestly a couple of charts would do the same thing and the single actual mechanic provide with this wasn't even well supported or explained.
2. Support for the crunch provided -- UM provide lots of new crunch... and no support or solid information on any of it. It promised rules for making constructs (such as animated objects) -- and when the section for this comes up it simply references what's already there (or more correctly what isn't there already). Yes there were some new highly expensive options... but these provided very little at very high expense -- I wanted something more on this subject. The spellbooks had the new ritual idea... which again wasn't supported very well -- only a handful of books that used them. Honestly simply listing various book rituals and the requirements for adding them to a book would have been much more useful. This was repeated over and over section after section. It seemed more of a series of articles that were written stream of conscious, "this could be a cool idea" without any follow up.
3. Feats -- what there were... was sad. Compared to UC which was simply inspired with many of its feats -- even the 'poor mechanical choices' were at least flavorful and fun sounding in UC -- not so much with UM. It came off as more of the same without any development of new ideas in feats or branching out or building on.
4. Archetypes and class features -- Sorcerers are going to be the down fall of Paizo I think. So much that didn't work, was poorly worded, or simply lacking inspiration and then when it came to the one class that could have really used something... we get a double cop out with cross blooded and 'almost bloodlines'. It left me wondering what happened. Look I rather not see a book for a couple more months than to see... honestly what felt like crap (especially compared to what I'm use to from Paizo).
5. Equipment support -- UM was lacking this. Equipment is one of the first things out of a new book that is used in my group. It draws distinction and can quickly add a new feel to a game, or complete the feel of a game -- a book all about magic lacked any magical items, lack any rules for new mundane equipment that a caster would like, lacked... everything. UC not only provided new weapons -- it provided new weapon abilities, weapons for different types of play, new armor, and nice new armor rules (with the mix and match armor options). Honestly it was enough to keep your head moving going (I want a character using that, I wonder what I can do with this).
All in all everything that I found good in UC was something I found wanting in UM. For me UM looked like something I would have expected of WotC during 3.5 while UC restored my joy and comfort with Paizo's work.
Because it's an invalid Effect Word pairing.My point is there are plenty of other combos like this which, according to your interpretation, should be rules-legal, last forever, and be undispellable. But you know your interpretation is relying on a dishonest interpretation of how the instantaneous duration works.
I believe you are confusing "What the rules appear to be written as saying" with "what I would actually allow at my table, either as a player or GM."
I do not believe that these effects should work as they are written. RAI, I think they don't. However, RAW lacks sufficient verbiage to remove doubt. My contention is not about the RAI, as I think the RAI is fine. I think there was insufficient editing done prior to release of the first printing of UM (which, I will say, I bought on release date and read cover to cover at least 3 times now, with some sections 10s of times more).
I would think that this point would have been absolutely clear with my first post, given that I specifically lauded errata to things in UM as good ideas. Scar Hex, for example, has a fantastic FAQ to fix what was an obvious gaping hole in mechanical effect for its cost of a Hex slot (or feat, as it were).
Who, by the by, fixed that?
The hex needs some clarification and a little bump.
First, the sentence "These scars do not hinder the target's actions or abilities in any way" is there to indicate that you can't scar over a target's eyes to make them blind, ears to make them deaf, or mouth and nose to keep them from breathing. However, large, visible scars may have a positive or negative effect for the target, depending on who he's interacting with--a tribal culture may see scarification as the mark of a deadly warrior, while the upper echelons of a decadent urban nobility may see scars as a sign of childhood poverty or general thuggishness. Rather than trying to present a system of game mechanics for all these possibilities, the GM should use the Fiat Rule (Core Rulebook page 403) to modify Bluff, Disguise, Diplomacy, and Intimidate checks as appropriate for interactions with the scarred target.
Second, the scar is a magical curse, and it should persist through changing shapes (lycanthropic, the change shape monster ability, polymorph spells, and so on).
Third, the hex needs a range. Touching the target to scar it is thematically appropriate, so the witch has to make a melee touch attack.
Fourth, the hex could benefit from a mechanical boost. Therefore, scarring a creature with the hex has two benefits: the witch can use any of her hexes on that creature at a range of up to one mile, and the witch is considered to have a body part from the target for the purpose of scry and similar divinations.
The book will be updated with these changes, though the exact wording will depend on the space available when the page is typeset.
Update: Witch scar hex, page 81, add notes about skill modifiers, shapechanging persistence, melee touch attack, increased range for other hexes, and scrying boost.
—Sean K Reynolds, 08/02/11
Oh, that's right. You did. And, like I said, I like the fix. I just wish that it had been in the original printing instead of having effects only by virtue of Rule Zero.
Errata happen. They are an important part of the development of a game of this magnitude. My original beef remains that it feels like too much of Ultimate Magic was rushed through to meet the street date.
TL:DR Version
It's not the RAI. It's the editing.
For me UC was a better book also it came down to the following:
Abraham, thanks for your detailed response.
1. I'm sorry you didn't find the premade spellbooks useful. Other people have been very excited about them. How do you think a couple of charts would be able to present this information in a way that was more helpful, or amounting to more than just "pick X spells of level 1, Y spells of level 2," and so on?
2. What more would you like to see about making constructs?
3. Please clarify what you mean by "sad" and (by comparison to UC) "uninspired"?
4. As we've discussed before, sorcerers are really hard to do archetypes for because (like cleric and wiz) they don't have many class abilities that can be swapped out for other abilities; bloodlines are about it, and yes, that limits the options of existing characters. Knowing what we know now, we probably should have given those classes more class abilities (obviously at the expense of spell slots or something similar) to allow for more customizability.
5. Yeah, we were kinda stuck with that one--we weren't supposed to put any new equipment in here because we knew we were going to do Ultimate Equipment. And Ultimate Combat *had* to have new equipment in it, otherwise the gunslinger/ninja/samurai wouldn't have the necessary support material. Argh.
I have to agree with Sean here. The rules for instantaneous spells are:
Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
That means instant spells only provide a lasting consequence if the spell description itself defines one. I will admit some of the instant spells could more clearly designate themselves as lasting effects. But that doesn't mean you can just pretend that any temporary spell that gets its duration reduced to instant somehow becomes permanent.
Really, the problem comes from 3.X not making a permanent duration separate from an instant duration spell. Still, it is very clear from reading the rules that instant spells are instant unless described otherwise in the spell description.
4. As we've discussed before, sorcerers are really hard to do archetypes for because (like cleric and wiz) they don't have many class abilities that can be swapped out for other abilities; bloodlines are about it, and yes, that limits the options of existing characters. Knowing what we know now, we probably should have given those classes more class abilities (obviously at the expense of spell slots or something similar) to allow for more customizability.
The tatoo sorcerer in the inner sea magic is a wonderful example on how sorcerer archetypes can be done. Sure it can't benefit all bloodlines, by virtue of replacing an unspecified power* but still i think that it's a good way to go, as long as it's not overdone, after all bloodlines are a major theme for the sorcerer.
*i also can understand the risk of creating too powerful options that way, since bloodlines are packages and packages also have weak part and by designing powers that replace a specific number of bloodline power (for example 2nd) might benefit some bloodlines while gimping others.
Might i suggest sorcerer archetypes that force the sorcerer to have a bloodline from a specific list (including wildblooded bloodlines)? That way archetypes can be designed without too much risk of unintional power creep or results in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the RAI. It's the editing.
"It is impossible to write a rule so clear that 100% of the readers will correctly understand it." --James Wyatt
Is it possible for people to interpret the "use the shortest of the involved durations" rule as "any duration-based effect combined with an instantaneous effect becomes a long-lasting, non-dispellable effect because *some* instantaneous effects are that way"? Yes, it's possible, but it requires the reader to disregard
(1) all examples of instantaneous, lingering-effect spells in the Core Rulebook, none of which are buffing spells,
(2) any sense of balance for what you should be able to accomplish with a low-level spell,
(3) that the lengthy meta-word is the only other way to extend a duration, and it only doubles the duration rather than making it permanent, so "finding" this other way to interpret a combo that is more effective than lengthy must be an incorrect interpretation.
It's not the editing, it's the willingness to disregard what you know about how the game works. Actually, it's both, but it requires a healthy dollop of the latter.
Could the rules be clearer? Hell, yes. I say that about the entire Core Rulebook. But that doesn't mean that this combo is a reasonable interpretation of the rule as written.