| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it wrong to use something that is given to you? Play-testing exists so that such "bugs" can be detected and fixed. You cannot blame the players for finding ways to exploit such things. It happened in 3,5 version and it will happen again. As long as companies bring out new material, players will keep inventing new combos. Do not forget that a lot of people that play Pathfinder or D'n'D also play some video games like WoW, LoL, etc, where it is essential for you to find the most effective build for your character. Combat oriented pen 'n' paper games are no exception for some of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it wrong to use something that is given to you?Science asks the question 'can I do this'. Philosophy asks the question 'should I do this'.
Gamers ask the question "am I having fun by doing this", if I may add. Though the real question would be "am I spoiling the fun of others with what I want to do". That's why GMs exist.
Not sure if in Pathfinder this work this way but let me explain, concussive damage is or can be interpreted as bludgeoning damage therefore you can apply damage reduction and since every rock inflict their own damage you apply the DR to each rock, still a lot damage pass but is something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if in Pathfinder this work this way but let me explain, concussive damage is or can be interpreted as bludgeoning damage therefore you can apply damage reduction and since every rock inflict their own damage you apply the DR to each rock, still a lot damage pass but is something.
Another flaw is that Intensify, Empower and Maximize feats are not legal feats for Feather Fall. If the base spell cannot use these feats, I would not allow them to be used by the Mythic version since the Feats must be added to the spell first. You don't memorize Mythic Feather Fall, you have a Feather Fall spell that you know how to add Mythic Power to if you choose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Metamagic feats stack with one another unless specifically noted that they do not.
So, yes, you can Maximize an Intensified Burning Hands from 5d6 to 10d6 and get 60 damage. You can then Empower it and get an additional +5d6 out of it.
No, you aren't going to be able to accumulate clusters of damage independently with this spell. Spells don't work that way. The damage from the Mythic Feather Fall is all going to be considered 'one source', not multiple sources. You either have to stagger them out so the people affected have time to avoid them (effectively 'attacking' with the pebbles) or they are simply going to be counted as one 'object' whose force gets released when the first hits. Thematically, I'd just have them all hit bam-bam-bam with cumulative blasts that add up to the standard damage, as opposed to the BIG boom when something substantial happens.
This is the exact same reasoning why Wall of Fire does 2d6+1/level. If you pass through the Wall of Fire, you take the same damage as if you stand in it for one round. Same rule of effect would apply.
And Salazar, you can apply metamagic feats to a spell that can't use it, it just doesn't do anything. There's no rule requiring a spell to have variable components to Empower it...the Empower just doesn't do anything and costs a higher spell slot.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Metamagic feats stack with one another unless specifically noted that they do not.
So, yes, you can Maximize an Intensified Burning Hands from 5d6 to 10d6 and get 60 damage. You can then Empower it and get an additional +5d6 out of it.
No, you aren't going to be able to accumulate clusters of damage independently with this spell. Spells don't work that way. The damage from the Mythic Feather Fall is all going to be considered 'one source', not multiple sources. You either have to stagger them out so the people affected have time to avoid them (effectively 'attacking' with the pebbles) or they are simply going to be counted as one 'object' whose force gets released when the first hits. Thematically, I'd just have them all hit bam-bam-bam with cumulative blasts that add up to the standard damage, as opposed to the BIG boom when something substantial happens.
This is the exact same reasoning why Wall of Fire does 2d6+1/level. If you pass through the Wall of Fire, you take the same damage as if you stand in it for one round. Same rule of effect would apply.
And Salazar, you can apply metamagic feats to a spell that can't use it, it just doesn't do anything. There's no rule requiring a spell to have variable components to Empower it...the Empower just doesn't do anything and costs a higher spell slot.
==Aelryinth
On page 112 of the Core rulebook, it says that Metamagic feats cannot be used with all spells. See the feat description for spells a feat cannot modify. The way I read that is if a metamagic feat cannot actually modify a spell, it can't be used on that spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a good point, but it still doesn't prevent you from meta'ing a spell uselessly. Used with and used on are actually different things. The feat would actually have to say which spells it can't be used on...i.e. personal-only spells, non-instantaneous spells, etc.
Empower, maximize, etc, don't have that language. So, yeah, you can meta spells they do absolutely nothing for.
==Aelryinth
That's a good point, but it still doesn't prevent you from meta'ing a spell uselessly. Used with and used on are actually different things. The feat would actually have to say which spells it can't be used on...i.e. personal-only spells, non-instantaneous spells, etc.
Empower, maximize, etc, don't have that language. So, yeah, you can meta spells they do absolutely nothing for.
==Aelryinth
I think that there is room for honest disagreement on this and would like a FAQ answer because none of the metamagic feats use your specific phrasing. Instead they all have phrasing such as spells without the x are not affected by this feat. Why have that line if all Metamagic feats could be used with all spells, just to no effect?
My simple solution is that I just won't allow any target to take damage from this spell more than once per round. That way they'll only take 5d6, and this will encourage players to try and spread out the impacts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I respect the concerns of some people in this thread, I think that in order to avoid frustration from such combos, the GM should make a contract with the players at the beginning of a campaign about what is and what isn't allowed. This means that source books should be carefully picked and examined and more importantly, books that get published during the campaign should be avoided in general.
Instead of trying to nerf a combo just because it is overpowered, GMs should just accept it and agree with their players that such stuff should only be used as a last resort or during meaningless battles. This way, you can keep players happy, as they know that they have access to their lifesaver button and have the chance to show off and GMs can stay calm as they know that crucial battles will not be steamrolled.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players are responsible for their own actions at table.
LIES AND PROPAGANDA!!!
While the first stone landing can't damage the other stones, I would rule that it would propel the other stones at least 30 feet away before they land as it is concussive force. This would severely limit the damage done and be fair to the rules of the spell.
|
I think that there is room for honest disagreement on this and would like a FAQ answer because none of the metamagic feats use your specific phrasing. Instead they all have phrasing such as spells without the x are not affected by this feat. Why have that line if all Metamagic feats could be used with all spells, just to no effect?That's a good point, but it still doesn't prevent you from meta'ing a spell uselessly. Used with and used on are actually different things. The feat would actually have to say which spells it can't be used on...i.e. personal-only spells, non-instantaneous spells, etc.
Empower, maximize, etc, don't have that language. So, yeah, you can meta spells they do absolutely nothing for.
==Aelryinth
I am with Salazar on this. Since the base Feather Fall does not have "variable, numeric effects", Empower or Maximize cannot be used on it. And thus cannot be used on its Mythic or Augmented versions either.
The nice trick of the OP then does not create the rain of absolute death we were blaming on the designers' oversight. It just means that the designers seem to have a far better and more comprehensive grasp of the rules than we do.
Which I think is far more likely than an oversight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that there is room for honest disagreement on this and would like a FAQ answer because none of the metamagic feats use your specific phrasing. Instead they all have phrasing such as spells without the x are not affected by this feat. Why have that line if all Metamagic feats could be used with all spells, just to no effect?That's a good point, but it still doesn't prevent you from meta'ing a spell uselessly. Used with and used on are actually different things. The feat would actually have to say which spells it can't be used on...i.e. personal-only spells, non-instantaneous spells, etc.
Empower, maximize, etc, don't have that language. So, yeah, you can meta spells they do absolutely nothing for.
==Aelryinth
I am with Salazar on this. Since the base Feather Fall does not have "variable, numeric effects", Empower or Maximize cannot be used on it. And thus cannot be used on its Mythic or Augmented versions either.
The nice trick of the OP then does not create the rain of absolute death we were blaming on the designers' oversight. It just means that the designers seem to have a far better and more comprehensive grasp of the rules than we do.
Which I think is far more likely than an oversight.
Even if the designers have a more comprehensive view of the rules THEY created, they are obliged to share this view with their players. You cannot expect the players to interpret the rules the same way. Pathfinder has created more than enough fails in terms of misunderstanding to make me believe that the designers are simply careless when writing down descriptions.
I will just mention 2 abilities that come into mind right now: Hidden Master and Perfect Lie.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the first stone landing can't damage the other stones, I would rule that it would propel the other stones at least 30 feet away before they land as it is concussive force. This would severely limit the damage done and be fair to the rules of the spell.
Immune means immune. It doesn't mean partially immune, and furthermore, nowhere in the description of the spell is any mention of the blasts knocking items back, just damage.
|
A possible easy solution to the problem would be to limit the damage of the blasts according to the size of the objects dropped. For example, fine objects deal 1 point of damage, diminutive objects deal 1d2, tiny 1d4, etc.
Yep, I think whoever wrote this was visualising someone hefting a sofa off a tenth floor balcony, not having a handful of dropped grit puncture the planet's core.
|
|
My counter as a GM.
The objects do not land at the same time. The first one lands does 20d6 to all the other objects around. 120 damage will destroy even an andmantine pebble therefore the other objects do not land.
"The targets of this spell are unaffected by these concussive blasts"
They're immune to their own blast, not the blasts of other pebbles exploding microseconds before they land.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To avoid misinterpretations, I believe that the original idea behind the spell was to make a flashy entrance. This means that 4-5 people land together and create a crater at the point of arrival. It makes perfect sense that the spell protects them not only from their own blast, but also from that of their comrades.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To avoid misinterpretations, I believe that the original idea behind the spell was to make a flashy entrance. This means that 4-5 people land together and create a crater at the point of arrival. It makes perfect sense that the spell protects them not only from their own blast, but also from that of their comrades.Funny that you're now arguing "common sense" when this thread was started because your interpretation is twisting RAI as far away from common sense as is possible.
I'm only using the tools given to me. It's not my fault that the designers are careless, or that GMs are offended by such combos. If it's in the game, it's in the game. If someone doesn't like it, it's his problem. However, trying to attack the validity of such ideas is not the best way to deal with it. I kept saying during the thread that such combos should be used only in extreme cases. If a player abuses them, it's up to the rest of the group to discuss it with him and find a solution.
The only issue I see with this is that it never says the objects' damage stacks or that a creature can be affected by the concussive blast more than once. Plus, from how I'm seeing it, it's an earthquake like effect, which seems like it would only damage creatures on the ground. Seems like you really need to get a lot of ducks in a row to get this to work as you, though.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm only using the tools given to me. It's not my fault that the designers are careless, or that GMs are offended by such combos. If it's in the game, it's in the game. If someone doesn't like it, it's his problem. However, trying to attack the validity of such ideas is not the best way to deal with it. I kept saying during the thread that such combos should be used only in extreme cases. If a player abuses them, it's up to the rest of the group to discuss it with him and find a solution.
Despite me trying to disprove this one, you're OK by me.
We hear too much Oberoni Fallacy round here, ie "the rule can be houseruled not to work that way, therefore the actual text isn't broken."
A big difference in approach goes a long way.
Your approach has been 'Look at this crazy combo. I'd never want to use it as a daily tactic, but boy, is this whacked.'.
Which is miles away from "I've been wrecking my home game for weeks, using this, the GM is protesting, and I'm going to stamp my virtual feet and insist I'm entitled to keep on doing it.".
Overpowered options and unintended combos can never be fixed until people drop the GM Fiat option, read the actual text, and agree that 'Yeah, that's badly worded, it needs a rewrite'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm only using the tools given to me. It's not my fault that the designers are careless, or that GMs are offended by such combos. If it's in the game, it's in the game. If someone doesn't like it, it's his problem. However, trying to attack the validity of such ideas is not the best way to deal with it. I kept saying during the thread that such combos should be used only in extreme cases. If a player abuses them, it's up to the rest of the group to discuss it with him and find a solution.Despite me trying to disprove this one, you're OK by me.
We hear too much Oberoni Fallacy round here, ie "the rule can be houseruled not to work that way, therefore the actual text isn't broken."
A big difference in approach goes a long way.
Your approach has been 'Look at this crazy combo. I'd never want to use it as a daily tactic, but boy, is this whacked.'.Which is miles away from "I've been wrecking my home game for weeks, using this, the GM is protesting, and I'm going to stamp my virtual feet and insist I'm entitled to keep on doing it.".
Overpowered options and unintended combos can never be fixed until people drop the GM Fiat option, read the actual text, and agree that 'Yeah, that's badly worded, it needs a rewrite'.
At last someone here understands what I am saying. Thank you Sir :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I interpreted mythic spells very differently. I interpreted (misinterpreted?) the line:
If you know the mythic version of a spell, any time you cast the spell, you may expend one use of mythic power to convert the spell into its mythic version as you cast it.
I took this to mean:
1) you begin casting the spell in whatever form you know/memorised (metamagic enhanced or otherwise).
2) THEN convert it to mythic version while casting (as a free action?).
Essentially a diference in timing as to when the mythic power comes into play. So i would say you couldn't apply the metamagics in question since featherfall is not an eligible target to begin with.
If you had a, say maximised fireball, or spontaneously cast a quickened fireball you would start the spell (yes even if a swift action) then convert to mythic as you cast by using MP. This converts the spell to make either a mythic maximized or quickened fireball.
So to use the featherfall, you cast as a swift, and once you start casting you use MP (free action?) to convert it to the mythic version.
I may be very wrong, but I think my interpretation will mitigate some of the issues like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I interpreted mythic spells very differently. I interpreted (misinterpreted?) the line:
If you know the mythic version of a spell, any time you cast the spell, you may expend one use of mythic power to convert the spell into its mythic version as you cast it.
I took this to mean:
1) you begin casting the spell in whatever form you know/memorised (metamagic enhanced or otherwise).2) THEN convert it to mythic version while casting (as a free action?).
Essentially a diference in timing as to when the mythic power comes into play. So i would say you couldn't apply the metamagics in question since featherfall is not an eligible target to begin with.
If you had a, say maximised fireball, or spontaneously cast a quickened fireball you would start the spell (yes even if a swift action) then convert to mythic as you cast by using MP. This converts the spell to make either a mythic maximized or quickened fireball.
So to use the featherfall, you cast as a swift, and once you start casting you use MP (free action?) to convert it to the mythic version.
I may be very wrong, but I think my interpretation will mitigate some of the issues like this.
This can work backwards though. Since spontaneous spellcasters apply metamagic feat as they cast their spells, couldn't one just say that he waits until the spell is converted to its mythic version and apply metamagic just after this? If this is the case, then those who prepare spells are at a serious disadvantage here.
This can work backwards though. Since spontaneous spellcasters apply metamagic feat as they cast their spells, couldn't one just say that he waits until the spell is converted to its mythic version and apply metamagic just after this? If this is the case, then those who prepare spells are at a serious disadvantage here.
I would say that spontaneous casters can't do it either. It takes a full round action to actually cast a meta-spell, so you initiate this "before" (even if only momentarily) you apply mythic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We hear too much Oberoni Fallacy round here, ie "the rule can be houseruled not to work that way, therefore the actual text isn't broken."Except one of the designers, SKR in fact, has specifically stated that you're meant to actually use your brain when you read the rules. And using your brain tells you that feather fall isn't a massive damage spell. People who want to abuse the system and game the system will always be able to, sometimes a lot, sometimes just a little, but the potential will always be there, so why waste efforts on those people when the same amount of effort can improve the game for the other 99%.
Pretty sure turning mythic Feather Fall into a nuke IS using your brain, and quite a bit too. I love the spirit behind this idea, and while I'm not sure all the rules sync together to make it work, it's a pretty solid thought experiment. I now have an urge to make a mage who does this on a smaller scale, using a hand of buck shot and whipping it at the ground like a megaton shotgun.
The rules are wonky enough to the point where "Use your Brain" isn't a valid argument, and really adds nothing to the discussion. It's like saying "Simulacrum isn't broken if you house rule the crap out of it, like we assume everyone does, and thus doesn't need fixing.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8, Contributor
|
Personally, I love the conceptual empowerment of the OP's idea and think it raises interesting questions about intent versus optimization. However, I think that there are some assumptions to making this work that are not necessarily granted given the writing of the spell itself. I think that before we discuss house rules and errata for this spell, there's a crucial aspect to be discussed that was originally mentioned by a previous poster and that leaves the power of the spell firmly in the hands of the GM.
The original post is predicated on the idea that the caster drops small objects and then uses mythic feather fall to weaponize them.
Now, we could debate the semantics of the following line in the mythic spell description.
"the spell absorbs the targets' velocity and transforms it into a concussive blast."
Webster's first definition of velocity is "quickness of motion." This would mean that if the pebbles were dropped at the last moment, or from a non-consequential height, their velocity would thus be non-consequential for the spell's absorption.
HOWEVER, that is PURELY conjecture and runs into the problem of real world versus game world physics, which has already been enumerated. I bring it up simply to show that there is room to view alternate intent in the description as opposed to simple developer oversight.
But HERE is the real crux.
What does it mean to drop an item?
It's a free action correct?
Yes.
BUT, as written, the core rulebook says
"Drop an Item
Dropping AN [emphasis mine] item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action."
Why would the caster get to drop more than one?
Well, that would require us go to the rules for free actions.
Again, Core Rulebook
"Free actions don't take any time at all, **though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn**."
Dropping AN item is a free action, so dropping more than one item already requires the use of multiple free actions and just like speaking in combat is a free action, but reciting all of Hamlet would likely not fit the Free Action description of "don't take any time at all" the rules as they exist already require some at-the-table adjudication for situations like these.
Moreover the rules for dropping an item say that you can drop it into your space or an adjacent space as a free action. So, even if we were to allow up to NINE free actions (which, as a GM I'd be not inclined to do) to account for the caster's own space and the eight adjacent squares for a medium creature that caps the ability unless we start adding enlarge person to give you more space or more reach, or Lunge, etc etc.
All of these, to me, divert from the original point: conceptually, this idea is AWESOME, it is imaginative and I love the OP's work in calculating massive damage from it.
However, the entire premise is based off the idea that they are allowed to make multiple free actions in the same turn in a manner that the description of Dropping an Item, and the definition of Free Actions do not unequivocally support as presented.
I agree that the language of the spell could use polish and clarification, but I disagree that it opens itself up to the loophole and "abuse" calculated. The existing framework for dropping items and using free actions seems capable of handling the situation without houserules or errata in my opinion.
Still...awesome idea.
I don't think it is very OP because when you are in Mythic tier, anything can happen. What I love to do for OP spell casting PCs would be that everytime they tried to pull powerful tricks to steal all the spot light from others, I will just tell them that tell them that suddenly you feel no magic around you. With your experience, you realized that sometime in some places when there are too much mana gathering and become too dense, it will burst out into other realms and create an anti-magic field temporally. I like that idea because it keeps caster at bay in late levels. Of course, you also had to be fair to them as they were weak at early game, so I normally give magical items that would help caster to survive very early as well.
But yea, the spell combo is powerful, but nothing is OP if the GM keeps it under control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, basically, your method of preventing spellcasters from stealing the spotlight is to just tell them "nope, doesn't work" with no rhyme or reason?
So, basically, your method of preventing spellcasters from stealing the spotlight is to just tell them "nope, doesn't work" with no rhyme or reason?
Well, material plane shouldn't always be able to handle so much magic so dense in one spot, the space of material plane just can't handle it, that's why you don't see magic everywhere. However, if players go to other planes where it's very magical, it makes sense for players to be able pull powerful spells. Powerful monsters or deity require offering in some sort to come to material plane because the need something from the material plane in order to stable the space enough for their powerful magic to transfer into this plane.
Also in my game, I rule that in the wild or no magic urban city, it's harder to pull power arcane magic due to the it's own balance in place, make mana harder to flow as the energy in that region has been very stable for a very long time. More technological advanced in certain place, the divine magic would be less stable due to the lack of faith around that region. For those cases, it would be hard to players to do those crazy spell combo without a chance of failing, I have not once found my players think it is unreasonable.
My method make total sense while perfectly control players who take all the spotlight from other players. Material plane is not a plane full of magic, it is a plane where everything is balanced, that's why it is such an important setting for most stories.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, basically, your method of preventing spellcasters from stealing the spotlight is to just tell them "nope, doesn't work" with no rhyme or reason?Well, material plane shouldn't always be able to handle so much magic so dense in one spot, the space of material plane just can't handle it, that's why you don't see magic everywhere. However, if players go to other planes where it's very magical, it makes sense for players to be able pull powerful spells. Powerful monsters or deity require offering in some sort to come to material plane because the need something from the material plane in order to stable the space enough for their powerful magic to transfer into this plane.
Also in my game, I rule that in the wild or no magic urban city, it's harder to pull power arcane magic due to the it's own balance in place, make mana harder to flow as the energy in that region has been very stable for a very long time. More technological advanced in certain place, the divine magic would be less stable due to the lack of faith around that region. For those cases, it would be hard to players to do those crazy spell combo without a chance of failing, I have not once found my players think it is unreasonable.
My method make total sense while perfectly control players who take all the spotlight from other players. Material plane is not a plane full of magic, it is a plane where everything is balanced, that's why it is such an important setting for most stories.
So basically you don't use Pathfinder Magic. Ok, that's great, but it has little to do with this topic.
On topic, this combo seems fine. Compare versus stacked Explosive Runes in CRB.
Actually your method is total nonsense, since it is basically "Your spells don't work randomly, and even though you are a practiced spellcaster with many years of experience, you couldn't have predicted it to happen"
If you wanted to have the same effect, you could have a base 10% failure rate on all spells
Once again, it's not random. And I would not have a failure rate on all spell because I want caster to be able to cast spell like normal without failure. Now my method will stop caster from spamming their OP spell combo all the time because now they have to think about where they are before they do that. However, they can still cast spell normally.