I can't imagine how it would hurt to let him keep it as-is now that the end of the campaign is upon you.
You've come this far, and consistency is probably going to be most appreciated by the group as a whole.
I was having trouble seeing how applying the pre-errata Selective Spell to Acid Fog or Black Tentacles is more powerful than applying it to Obsidian Flow or any other instantaneous area-effect spell. Then I realized that perhaps we had different interpretations of the metamagical feat.
I visualize that applying Selective Spell to Black Tentacles would let the sorcerer shape holes in it at selected squares. If the party's fighter is flanked by two enemy barbarians, the sorcerer could cast Black Tentacles surrounding the fighter, but excluding the fighter's square. This would give the fighter an advantage over the grappled barbarians, but he would be trapped in the middle of the Black Tentacle zone, unable to step out of his one safe square. Unless the sorcerer had shaped an exit path of empty squares for him. If so, a third barbarian could rush up that path to attack the fighter, maybe even Bull Rushing the fighter into the tentacles to get grappled.
That sounded reasonably balanced for metamagic.
Another option that reduces the effectiveness of the feat while still maintaining the original use that you guys played with:
The caster gets X rounds of immunity to the spell, divided by the targets he chooses. So if it's just the party fighter who goes in the spell area, he gets essentially the full effect as you've been playing. If the whole party wants to run through the spell, the duration of their immunity will be shorter.
Reading Irontruth's suggested compromise, I see that another interpretation is that the pre-errata Selective Spell would not create holes in the Black Tentacles. Instead, it would give the fighter total immunity to the Black Tentacles. He could stride through the middle of the tentacles and they would not reach for him nor grapple him. This interpretation would be even more remarkable with Acid Fog, for the fog would part before him like the Red Sea before the Israelites, allowing him acid-free passage, yet would close behind him to eat away at his enemies. If that interpretation is carried far enough, the fighter could even see through the Acid Fog or an Obscuring Mist as if through clear air. He could walk over the volcanic ash of Volcanic Storm without reckoning it as difficult terrain. Maybe he could even shoot arrows through Solid Fog.
That version is overpowered. It alters the nature of the spell, giving it an intelligence and responsiveness well beyond the basic spell.
Yet the wording of Selective Spell says, "you can choose a number of targets in the area," and the plain word "targets" could mean "target creatures or objects." Isn't that what "targets" usually means? No, I argue that an area effect targets an area of squares, so the word "targets" would follow that targeting principle to mean "target square."
Which interpretation is the party using? Why did their interpretation raise such a stink that your BS detector went off?
I've been reading this for a while and thinking about how I would handle it in my own games. I would like to mention that your thread title and the actual problem are not the same. If this was the middle of the campaign, I would enforce the errata. This isn't the case though. You are at the end and have already dealt with the feat up to this point. As GM, you have adapted already. I would let him keep things the old way with the understanding that future characters will follow errata as it comes out and that if these characters are played in the future, then he will have to deal with the errata at that point.
Good call on the thread title. I should have said in the middle of an adventure.
SithHunter,
How many sessions do you estimate are left? I think that makes a difference on how important it would be to force the issue.
I'm of the opinion of going with the errated version, or at least coming up with a compromise, considering the other players are for doing so, and you say it won't nerf the character in question too much.
When errata has come up in my games (and there's been some doozies. Anyone remember the Ninja of the Crescent Moon from D&D 3.0 Sword and Fist?) I've always discussed it with my players, with the errata normally winning out unless there hasn't been a noticeable problem with the original version.
I do always give the player the option of changing out the nerfed option for something different, and they don't have to decide right away. I usually give them a session or two with the revised version if they want before they have to decide whether to swap it or keep it.
Difficult to tell how many sessions are left at this point because it really depends on what actions the players take. If I had to ball park it, I'd say at least 8-10. That's me guessing on the low end.
I was having trouble seeing how applying the pre-errata Selective Spell to Acid Fog or Black Tentacles is more powerful than applying it to Obsidian Flow or any other instantaneous area-effect spell. Then I realized that perhaps we had different interpretations of the metamagical feat.
I visualize that applying Selective Spell to Black Tentacles would let the sorcerer shape holes in it at selected squares. If the party's fighter is flanked by two enemy barbarians, the sorcerer could cast Black Tentacles surrounding the fighter, but excluding the fighter's square. This would give the fighter an advantage over the grappled barbarians, but he would be trapped in the middle of the Black Tentacle zone, unable to step out of his one safe square. Unless the sorcerer had shaped an exit path of empty squares for him. If so, a third barbarian could rush up that path to attack the fighter, maybe even Bull Rushing the fighter into the tentacles to get grappled.
That sounded reasonably balanced for metamagic.
Reading Irontruth's suggested compromise, I see that another interpretation is that the pre-errata Selective Spell would not create holes in the Black Tentacles. Instead, it would give the fighter total immunity to the Black Tentacles. He could stride through the middle of the tentacles and they would not reach for him nor grapple him. This interpretation would be even more remarkable with Acid Fog, for the fog would part before him like the Red Sea before the Israelites, allowing him acid-free passage, yet would close behind him to eat away at his...Another option that reduces the effectiveness of the feat while still maintaining the original use that you guys played with:
The caster gets X rounds of immunity to the spell, divided by the targets he chooses. So if it's just the party fighter who goes in the spell area, he gets essentially the full effect as you've been playing. If the whole party wants to run through the spell, the duration of their immunity will be shorter.
Hey Mathmuse :)
It's the second interpretation. "Targets in the area" are his allies, and his caster has enough of a bonus to select all of them before casting. So those "targets" are unaffected. And yes, they have ignored the debilitating effects of acid fog, black tentacles, and fog cloud. The problem is, as I adjust for these things, it gets more difficult for the rest of the party.
Your offer to replace the feat, or use it post errata sounds very reasonable.
^This +1
Basically, it's a case where you both can say "my bad" and move on. Using the feat per the errata makes sense. He got to use it at the uber-level for a while, so that's a bonus.
/ in my campaign, when things like this happen we usually take stock of the rule and look at how it effects the game and which players it effects. We go from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for all the input! The Paizo community has once again proven how extraordinary it is.
As game day is rapidly approaching, I've finally got a few options to present to my player. hopefully all will turn out well and we can do more playing than debating.
Once again thanks to all! :)
Mathmuse appears to have suggested another compromise. Change the interpretation of "targets" from "creatures" to "squares". That would allow your player to still use it with his longer duration spells, but it wouldn't make the party completely immune.
My interpretation of Selective Spell was a way to conveniently cast area effect spells without endangering fellow party members. The second interpretation is a powerful combat trick. Switching from the second interpretation to the first interpretation would be a serious downgrade.
SithHunter has seen the second interpretation in action, but I can imagine parts of it. The allies and opponents close in on each other and suddenly the sorcerer casts an Acid Fog centered on them. The allies stay in the acid and make a full attack. The opponents retreat, either after a standard-action attack and a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity, or after a withdraw. Either way, the retreat hurts the opponents as much as the allies. That means the opponents have a hit-point disadvantage of 2d6 damage from acid and more damage from the party's attack before the retreat.
The battle moves to the edge of the Acid Fog, with the opponents right outside. If a party member is on the losing side of a duel, he can easily retreat to the safety of the Acid Fog by taking a five-foot step backwards. Pressing the assault against the ally would require that the opponent step into the Acid Fog again. 2d6 damage a round adds up.
With my version of Selective Spell, the opponents might still retreat. But they could see that the ally in front of them is in a safe hole in the acid and maybe try a Bull Rush instead to steal the safety. Guess who will be standing in the acid when the 2d6 acid damage is dealt out again. If the opponents do retreat, the party can no longer safely follow to battle at the edge of the Acid Fog. No, the party might even be stuck in the middle of the acid. They could adapt to this new situation by learning archery, but learning good archery feats requires leveling up, which will probably happen only once more in this campaign.
If he feels the need to rebuild his character for one adventure, I guess he can. That said, one of the major limitations of an AOE Conjuration caster is where to place his spells to greatest effect, and without harming his allies.
Selective Spell (pre errata) got rid of that completely. It was too good. It was changed for a reason.
I agree with you that it was too powerful and I agree with the change. What I mean to say is that, depending on the group, trying to place the spells might become either too difficult/time consuming to the point where it becomes disruptive.
Certainly it is an important restriction for a caster to have to work area spells around their allies, but how much of a restriction it can be varies game to game, party to party. In a 3 player party with ONE front line fighter and an archer, chances are you will be able to with limited difficulty place area spells to not screw your allies. If your party contains 5 melee combatants most of which want flanking, or use teamwork feats and all have high intiatative, it is a much larger limitation, and as a player I would likely choose (mostly) different spells, feats, and other options.
Selective spell (in its too good form) completely changes that limitation as you say. And if the player made lots of choices he wouldnt have with the feat in place, he should be able to remake those choices with it out of play.