|
so why bother playing a Sorcerer when a different class does everything they do and is more effective 90% of the time?
The arcanist table shows he gets up to 4 spells/day, whereas the sorcerer gets 6, right? The sorcerer doesn't need to worry about a spellbook. Some of the arcanist stuff is based off CHA? So he probably needs a decent INT and CHA, whereas the sorcerer can dump INT.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this change speaks to a philosophy that is against ingenuity. Want a different ability? Better gain that level or go through weeks of in game retraining. But on the fly? No, sir...
One of the larger critiques a friend of mine has against Pathfinder is that to do anything mechanically different is tedious as all hell and then it's essentially unchangeable if circumstances change such as say from one round of combat to another. I'm starting to see his point. It's one thing to create rules and have to live with them but to back track like this speaks to a philosophy of thought. Spontaneous invention is bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this change speaks to a philosophy that is against ingenuity. Want a different ability? Better gain that level or go through weeks of in game retraining. But on the fly? No, sir...
One of the larger critiques a friend of mine has against Pathfinder is that to do anything mechanically different is tedious as all hell and then it's essentially unchangeable if circumstances change such as say from one round of combat to another. I'm starting to see his point. It's one thing to create rules and have to live with them but to back track like this speaks to a philosophy of thought. Spontaneous invention is bad.
It's not a shock that Paizo tends to be very conservative in its design decisions, given that company owes much of its origins and initial customer base to hatred of the changes introduced in 4th edition. Starting Pathfinder off with the mantra of "Change is Bad, Stick to the Old Ways!" does not encourage making major breaks from the established dynamics.
Paizo's heavier focus on APs and Modules has also lent itself to much more conservative designs, since Paizo wants to keep their adventures as accessible as possible. Anything that breaks from the basic paradigms of the CRB would make adventure-writing a lot harder, ergo Paizo doesn't break the mold. Not to mention it affects a lot of their mechanical thought process; Crane Wing probably never would have been nerfed if not for it's ability to wreck a lot of unmodified published material.
Much as I like the ACG classes, it's rather telling that they're all just hybrids of existing classes with a couple tweaks. While Paizo has added a lot of fun stuff to the game over the years, there hasn't been much in the way of real innovation beyond the micro-scale. New archetypes for existing classes that usually push them into a specific narrow role. New classes that largely combine existing mechanics, albeit in new ways.
Interesting variations on what already exists can only go so far. Eventually I would like to see something that's just completely new, instead of stuff like "Oh, now we have an arcane equivalent to the Paladin/Ranger niche of full BAB and 4-level casting, and a spontaneous caster using the druid list."
|
@Chengar: you might enjoy the recently announced Pathfinder Unchained.
@Everyone else: maybe you can explain something to me. I'm not sure I see the force of the "stealth errata!" complaint. They have to wait for a previous print run to sell out before they can issue errata for the new printing—would you rather they leave issues untouched except on that arbitrary schedule? In the meantime, the FAQ list that already exists seems like a good place to note these changes (better that than having two different places to look!).
Trust me, not only am I happy for the FAQ too, I'm equally glad this FAQ has been well-received so far!I am pleased this has been changed but was curious why it was labelled as a FAQ when it is clearly an errata.Outrageous! This is clearly just a clarification of the spell, and we've always been at war with Eastasia.
Or is it just a labeling complaint? Would you be happier if they tagged these "FAQ" entries as "pending errata," or consistently apply the "this change will be reflected in the next printing of X" language?
|
|
I think this change speaks to a philosophy that is against ingenuity. Want a different ability? Better gain that level or go through weeks of in game retraining. But on the fly? No, sir...
One of the larger critiques a friend of mine has against Pathfinder is that to do anything mechanically different is tedious as all hell and then it's essentially unchangeable if circumstances change such as say from one round of combat to another. I'm starting to see his point. It's one thing to create rules and have to live with them but to back track like this speaks to a philosophy of thought. Spontaneous invention is bad.
Sure, I can see some of that dissatisfaction with the PF rules. But it isn't reflective of an anti-spontenaity philosophy, it seems to me, as much as it is reflective of the general nature of the system they inherited. I.e. due to some extent to legacy issues.
But what really undermines the worry that this is some foundational anti-spontenaity philosophy: if you want one strong example of spontenaity mechanics, look at the upcoming Brawler class, with it's ability to swap out feats on the fly. Or the Arcanist and its exploits. You might enjoy those options. :-)
. . .
But what really undermines the worry that this is some foundational anti-spontenaity philosophy: if you want one strong example of spontenaity mechanics, look at the upcoming Brawler class, with it's ability to swap out feats on the fly. Or the Arcanist and its exploits. You might enjoy those options. :-)
Before the errata, you could take three feats and get Paragon Surge on a different caster and do that. Picture a paladin using third level slots to borrow feats, or any class really that gets at least 3rd level spells. There is a significant feat tax involved, but now you can't even do that anymore. :\
Which takes more investment? Three or four feats for one trick or several levels of Brawler? Which works to fill more concepts? I know my answer... and it's no longer an option.
@Chengar: you might enjoy the recently announced Pathfinder Unchained.
Intriguing. Details/relevant link?
Or is it just a labeling complaint? Would you be happier if they tagged these "FAQ" entries as "pending errata," or consistently apply the "this change will be reflected in the next printing of X" language?
I think it's mostly a matter of semantics, yeah. Technically speaking, an FAQ should be for clarifying rules, not making outright changes to the written text. Also, while it's not an issue with this one, some of the previous stealth-errata FAQs, most infamously the Free Action one, broke the game in an effort to avoid changing any written rules text.
There's also the fact that a lot of people think tying the issuing of errata to prints runs of the books is a bit outdated in the digital age.
|
|
@Chengar: you might enjoy the recently announced Pathfinder Unchained.Intriguing. Details/relevant link?
Apologies for the lack of a proper link. Was writing from phone. :-)
Now that I'm sitting down: Here are the insta-blurbs that came out of the PaizoCon banquet:
This news from the PaizoCon banquet seems relevant. :-)
Spring 2015: Pathfinder Unchained: 256 pages of WTF? Uhm..."what if the rules team could do whatever they wanted". It's a new set of rules and different things they could do stuff they wanted to do. New Summoner. Fixed Rogue. Full BAB Monk.In spring 2015.... Pathfinder Unchained. Rules team goes wild, backward compatibility be damned! New rogue, monk with full BAB, summoner....
And HERE is the product page with a longer description and a discussion thread. JB has jumped in a couple times with helpful clarifications, so look for those.
|
|
Which takes more investment? Three or four feats for one trick or several levels of Brawler? Which works to fill more concepts? I know my answer... and it's no longer an option.
Hi Te'Shen: my point wasn't that Brawler would fill the specific niche of previous Paragon Surge builds. I don't have much of a stake or interest in Paragon Surge, actually.
Rather, my point there was specifically addressed to Buri: that the spontaneity mechanics prominently featured in the Brawler and in the Arcanist should assuage Buri's concern that the PDT might be, as a rule, dead-set against "on-the-fly", spontaneous character styles. :-)
|
Emergency Attunement, anyone?Whoo, I was worried for a second there, it looked like a nerf and then I thought it was a stealth errata but then you pointed out its just a good old fashioned feat tax, I know all about those :)
And a standard action.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if polymorph spells Will get a similar nerf.
This is to me counter intuitive, to make a spell once pr Day like that is a weak solution to a badly written spell. Better to close the hole than to pretent it was ment to be just with a new game mechanic on top.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, I can see some of that dissatisfaction with the PF rules. But it isn't reflective of an anti-spontenaity philosophy, it seems to me, as much as it is reflective of the general nature of the system they inherited. I.e. due to some extent to legacy issues.
But what really undermines the worry that this is some foundational anti-spontenaity philosophy: if you want one strong example of spontenaity mechanics, look at the upcoming Brawler class, with it's ability to swap out feats on the fly. Or the Arcanist and its exploits. You might enjoy those options. :-)
There MUST be a point where the 'we inherited this' line is no longer an acceptable response. They've had the system for years. They are uniquely their own entity as a company and as a gaming system. No longer do I hear Pathfinder likened to being D&D 3.75. People know Pathfinder as Pathfinder. At this point the inherited rebuttal is an excuse. If you disagree then, we'll have to agree to disagree.
My take away from those other classes is more confusion not less. If it's okay for them to do that then why isn't it okay for the spell to remain as it was? The brawler doesn't have those limitations. Neither does the arcanist for those exploits. So, it's clearly not a martial vs. caster balance thing. What's worse, the brawler can have up to 3 feats at a time. As a move action. Thus, being able to still attack. Hell, you can do one as a free action. Chain a few of those together for some nifty effects. For FREE. Some even as an immediate. But, god forbid paragon surge letting you select some extra spells as a standard action. Which, depending on the GM, takes away complete surprise depending on what they reveal to those making spellcraft checks. You can't chain surges to qualify for whole feat chains so many of the bogeyman scenarios are just as that: nonexistent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A new FAQ has affected Paragon surge. Now I am of mixed minds when it comes to this. It seems to me that this is less an FAQ than an Errata, and honestly not a terribly bad one, however it does seem to cut down on the use of the spell significantly.
I would have prefered to see this as an Errata/Rewrite rather than an FAQ "fix" by slapping a restriction on a spell that is nowhere in the spell text and could cause discussion/table variation in places that are using books/PRD and where some do and some do not have access to the FAQ at a moments notice.
I am wondering what the general consensus is on this?
This is not a bash Paizo thread! Please, understand that I am only looking for opinions on this topic, not to attack the game we all play and enjoy or the company that makes it in any way.
I hate the idea of Paragon Surge sorcerers, but the FAQ is wrong on this. The spell clearly states that the feat is chosen when you cast the spell and the effect lasts until the end of the spell. There is nothing in the spell description that says anything about daily limits on your choosing.
The spell clearly would allow you to cast it, pick up Stealthy, cast it later, and get Toughness, cast it later, for Great Fortitude, etc. The FAQ is just wrong here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There MUST be a point where the 'we inherited this' line is no longer an acceptable response. They've had the system for years.
Amen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Te'Shen: my point wasn't that Brawler would fill the specific niche of previous Paragon Surge builds. I don't have much of a stake or interest in Paragon Surge, actually.
Rather, my point there was specifically addressed to Buri: that the spontaneity mechanics prominently featured in the Brawler and in the Arcanist should assuage Buri's concern that the PDT might be, as a rule, dead-set against "on-the-fly", spontaneous character styles. :-)
Ah... well my point still stands. It's ok for two new classes to get something that was already allowed... but we have to take it away before the new classes come out... because it's their shtick?
. . . What people complained about was being able to access your entire spell list (when not being able to access that entire list is the class' explicit weakness).
That's why you summon things with spell like abilities. Or shadow conjure things with spell like abilities and intentionally fail your save. Or use an archetype that lets you power items with spell slots. Or use an early entry mystic theurge to get full casting on one side and 6th level casting on the other. Or play a witch. Or ask somebody that's good at the game about other exploits because I'm not.
You can't really argue that that wasn't absurdly strong and comparing it to the Brawler picking up a couple free maneuver feats (which aren't anywhere close to the same level of power) is silly.
I'm not seeing as how it's any different.
The spell gives you an enhancement bonus to Dexterity and Intelligence and a free feat. By the time you can cast the spell the enhancement bonus is either something you have gear for or you don't care. The free feat is the only thing that matters. Trading a 3rd or 4th level spell slot for a temporary feat isn't a big deal. In fact, it's usually inferior. I say usually because of two exceptions. Instead of 'fixing' paragon surge, why not errata/faq expanded arcana and improved eldritch heritage to only be taken once per day if accessed via spell. Leave everything else alone so that paladin's and alchemists and anybody else who is willing to trade a spell slot for a temporary feat may do so?
Other than two specific feats, what was so all powerful about paragon surge? The on the fly element is the point of paragon surge, isn't it?
. . .
The spell clearly would allow you to cast it, pick up Stealthy, cast it later, and get Toughness, cast it later, for Great Fortitude, etc. The FAQ is just wrong here.
Exactly. And thank you, Ashiel.
No problem. It is the increasing number of instances where the FAQ is wrong that is the reason why I don't know anyone personally who accepts the FAQ as a given. Especially when it's so obvious to anyone who actually reads the text that it is wrong. It's not even a subject of debate in this case. It's not answering a question or clarifying anything. It's saying something completely contrary to what the rules actually say.
Why do people keep referring to this as a broad, sweeping change? Insofar as I can tell, it only effects the one spell.
This pisses me off. The only thing broken about Paragon Surge was using it to spont. cast entire spell lists on a whim. Using it as intended to simply get whatever feat you need at the moment (ad qualify for) was fine and not in need of fixing. Instead, they left that Energy Attunement feat in for a handy loophole and nerfed the spell to hell for gish/martial types trying to use it.
All they had to do was say, "You cannot gain spells known through use of this spell" and it'd have been fine. Ugh, this reeks of when they realized the gun rules were broken and rather than nerf guns, decided to nerf free actions in general.
And the tin foil hat guy is on to something. This nerf makes the Arcanist look more appealing. It also makes the Brawler's spontaneous grabbing of a fighter feat a bit more unique and special. It really does seem like some of these nerfs are driven by the desire to make the new classes more appealing.
You can still pick a different feat each time you cast it. The feat you choose just needs to have the same variable for the whole day. So you could get Power Attack with one casting, and Weapon Focus (longsword) with another. You could not however change from Weapon Focus (longsword) to Weapon Focus (heavy mace) in the same day.
Or is it just a labeling complaint? Would you be happier if they tagged these "FAQ" entries as "pending errata," or consistently apply the "this change will be reflected in the next printing of X" language?
I would be much happier, yes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because there's nothing that says what feat you change is variable. Applying the same logic means if you cast polymorph at 8 am to turn into a monkey to climb a tree, then later at 12pm, casting polymorph means you turn into a monkey again, even though you really wanted to be Tony the tiger.
Because with polymorph, you choose a form, and the spell ends later.
With paragon surge, you choose a feat, and the spell ends later.
They're the same thing.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, as you can see from where Joe quoted me above, the point of the FAQ is not only to clarify but also in some cases to sort "ready an action for errata" if you will. Official errata can't appear unless there is a reprint. That's a rule that comes from higher than us. But sometimes, a book takes 3 years to sell out or never sells out. And so it can be helpful to have an FAQ in the meantime. FAQs absolutely are allowed to contradict the original text. A FAQ can be good or bad, but it can't be "wrong".
For instance, say we print a feat called Pachycephalosaurus's Might that reads "On a charge, you can perform a headbutt attack dealing 222d6 damage and initiate a bull rush as a free action". And then there was a FAQ that read
Pachycephalosaurus's Might: When I charge, can I really do 222d6 damage?
Answer: No. Your headbutt deals 2d6 damage.
Now clearly this FAQ contradicts the printed text of Pachycephalosaurus's Might. But that doesn't make the FAQ "wrong". It just means the printing was wrong, as likely many readers suspected, which is also what made the question frequently asked.
So if you think of them as occasionally being "readied actions for errata", that would help get a better handle on what FAQs are.
Guys, as you can see from where Joe quoted me above, the point of the FAQ is not only to clarify but also in some cases to sort "ready an action for errata" if you will. Official errata can't appear unless there is a reprint. That's a rule that comes from higher than us. But sometimes, a book takes 3 years to sell out or never sells out. And so it can be helpful to have an FAQ in the meantime. FAQs absolutely are allowed to contradict the original text. A FAQ can be good or bad, but it can't be "wrong".
For instance, say we print a feat called Pachycephalosaurus's Might that reads "On a charge, you can perform a headbutt attack dealing 222d6 damage and initiate a bull rush as a free action". And then there was a FAQ that read
Pachycephalosaurus's Might: When I charge, can I really do 222d6 damage?
Answer: No. Your headbutt deals 2d6 damage.Now clearly this FAQ contradicts the printed text of Pachycephalosaurus's Might. But that doesn't make the FAQ "wrong". It just means the printing was wrong, as likely many readers suspected, which is also what made the question frequently asked.
So if you think of them as occasionally being "readied actions for errata", that would help get a better handle on what FAQs are.
I appreciate your response.
As I have said my major worry was that this would cause table variation.
However Ashiel has raised a valid point, which I feel begs the question.
Is this going to only apply to Paragon Surge or does this represent a sort of unwritten rule idea such as handedness that will guide FAQ/Errata/Design in the future?
It seems with this FAQ and the CRB FAQ about daily uses, this may be a Design philosophy and not an isolated event. This is of course only my opinion based on very limited outsider knowledge.
Please understand I only question because I actually like pathfinder quite a lot and am very interested in design philosophy as espoused by Paizo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, as you can see from where Joe quoted me above, the point of the FAQ is not only to clarify but also in some cases to sort "ready an action for errata" if you will. Official errata can't appear unless there is a reprint. That's a rule that comes from higher than us. But sometimes, a book takes 3 years to sell out or never sells out. And so it can be helpful to have an FAQ in the meantime. FAQs absolutely are allowed to contradict the original text. A FAQ can be good or bad, but it can't be "wrong".
For instance, say we print a feat called Pachycephalosaurus's Might that reads "On a charge, you can perform a headbutt attack dealing 222d6 damage and initiate a bull rush as a free action". And then there was a FAQ that read
Pachycephalosaurus's Might: When I charge, can I really do 222d6 damage?
Answer: No. Your headbutt deals 2d6 damage.Now clearly this FAQ contradicts the printed text of Pachycephalosaurus's Might. But that doesn't make the FAQ "wrong". It just means the printing was wrong, as likely many readers suspected, which is also what made the question frequently asked.
So if you think of them as occasionally being "readied actions for errata", that would help get a better handle on what FAQs are.
I appreciate your response.
As I have said my major worry was that this would cause table variation.
However Ashiel has raised a valid point, which I feel begs the question.
Is this going to only apply to Paragon Surge or does this represent a sort of unwritten rule idea such as handedness that will guide FAQ/Errata/Design in the future?
It seems with this FAQ and the CRB FAQ about daily uses, this may be a Design philosophy and not an isolated event. This is of course only my opinion based on very limited outsider knowledge.
Please understand I only question because I actually like pathfinder quite a lot and am very interested in design philosophy as espoused by Paizo.
Hey, no worries! I know that everyone in this thread is passionate about Pathfinder, and that makes me happy. Whether you are happy for the FAQ, upset, or just curious. All of you took the time to come here and provide us feedback when you could have also been doing something else. So I'm grateful for it. Yes, even the people who are upset. I like to hear feedback.
Anyways--
The rule which is more general (that you continue to track the uses of abilities you temporarily gained) got an FAQ in the CRB, but the FAQ on paragon surge affects paragon surge alone, no other spell or ability. So your ninja or rogue with the Forgotten Trick ninja trick? Totally go to town on using different tricks all you want.
As an AoO not related to your post, I will point out that Emergency Attunement on paragon surge will give you a pretty underwhelming result when combined with the new FAQ, so I wouldn't waste the standard action using it on paragon surge (though it's still pretty darn incredible with things like Spellcraft + readied action + spell immunity).
Huh? This FAQ or errata or whatever doesn't effect Polymorph.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They have to wait for a previous print run to sell out before they can issue errata for the new printingOr they could just.. have an errata section.
That would be really nice.
Hey, no worries! I know that everyone in this thread is passionate about Pathfinder, and that makes me happy. Whether you are happy for the FAQ, upset, or just curious. All of you took the time to come here and provide us feedback when you could have also been doing something else. So I'm grateful for it. Yes, even the people who are upset. I like to hear feedback.
Anyways--
The rule which is more general (that you continue to track the uses of abilities you temporarily gained) got an FAQ in the CRB, but the FAQ on paragon surge affects paragon surge alone, no other spell or ability. So your ninja or rogue with the Forgotten Trick ninja trick? Totally go to town on using different tricks all you want.
As an AoO not related to your post, I will point out that Emergency Attunement on paragon surge will give you a pretty underwhelming result when combined with the new FAQ, so I wouldn't waste the standard action using it on paragon surge (though it's still pretty darn incredible with things like Spellcraft + readied action + spell immunity).
My thanks again. :-)
I have one more question then. I stated earlier that a spell like Bestow Grace of the Champion which gives the recipient a use of Lay on hands and a use of smite evil would not allow for a seconds casting to give the same target a second use of smite evil.
I was corrected, and told it would, but am still confused.
Would spells like Bestow Grace of the Champion allow for a second use of Smite Evil if cast on the same target in the same day?
Is it only things that explicitly say X use per day gained, that are now limited?
So basically is this a way to avoid temporary attribute shenanigans to gain and lose ability uses, or I am not understanding?
Also why would Emergency Attunement not work on Paragon Surge? I do not understand sorry.
Sorry for the rambling, and the multiple questions, I guess I had more than one.
Ah I see. There's more than one new FAQ.
Why the heck didn't anyone LINK TO THE OTHER ONE when it is clearly relevant to the discussion?
I don't think anyone ever suggested that.
Yeah, they did. Maybe not in this thread but, oh, yes, they (as in many) did.
What people complained about was being able to access your entire spell list (when not being able to access that entire list is the class' explicit weakness).
You can't really argue that that wasn't absurdly strong and comparing it to the Brawler picking up a couple free maneuver feats (which aren't anywhere close to the same level of power) is silly.
The brawler can pick from any of the 603 combat feats. To imply its only purpose is the maneuver feats is plainly wrong. Let's briefly see what that gives us:
- Blind-fight: negate advantage from invisible melee or its child which also negates invisible advantage from ranged when pinpointed
- Blundering defense: increased AC
- Cautious fighter: increased AC which stacks with blundering defense (both dodge)
- Clustered shots so you only need to 'turn it on' against high DR enemies
- Combat reflexes for those times you actually need to make extra AOOs
- Any critical feats for just about any effect on a critical you can imagine for a single feat
- Covering defense: provide AC to adjacent allies
- etc...
The fact is it reduces feat taxes by a metric f@#$ ton. It's the equivalent of magic among martial classes without being magic especially considering your brawler levels qualify for monk AND fighter levels for feats. Imagine two brawlers in a party and consider teamwork feats. But that's okay, apparently. So, you can just scaffold all your essential and springboard feats and use Martial Maneuvers to fill in the gaps when you need something specific. It almost sounds like the whole point of paragon surge!
As to having access to your entire spell list, you realize the name of the game for sorcerers is flexibility, right? So! You grab up the spells that you can get a lot of mileage from already. Things like shadow evocation and limited wish, etc are already high on the list for grabs. What you don't get with a sorcerer are those more nichey spells that would be really great 'if.' Paragon surge (before now) simply let you gain access to those more readily without needing to expend, say, a limited wish because spending a 7th level spell for a level 2 or 3 effect is really freaking stupid. It kept those other spells relevant. Now, they'll just get ignored all over again. The same is true for every other spontaneous class.
Ah I see. There's more than one new FAQ.
Why the heck didn't anyone LINK TO THE OTHER ONE when it is clearly relevant to the discussion?
I did on page one Here, after someone showed it to me.
Hey, no worries! I know that everyone in this thread is passionate about Pathfinder, and that makes me happy. Whether you are happy for the FAQ, upset, or just curious. All of you took the time to come here and provide us feedback when you could have also been doing something else. So I'm grateful for it. Yes, even the people who are upset. I like to hear feedback.
Anyways--
The rule which is more general (that you continue to track the uses of abilities you temporarily gained) got an FAQ in the CRB, but the FAQ on paragon surge affects paragon surge alone, no other spell or ability. So your ninja or rogue with the Forgotten Trick ninja trick? Totally go to town on using different tricks all you want.
As an AoO not related to your post, I will point out that Emergency Attunement on paragon surge will give you a pretty underwhelming result when combined with the new FAQ, so I wouldn't waste the standard action using it on paragon surge (though it's still pretty darn incredible with things like Spellcraft + readied action + spell immunity).
My thanks again. :-)
I have one more question then. I stated earlier that a spell like Bestow Grace of the Champion which gives the recipient a use of Lay on hands and a use of smite evil would not allow for a seconds casting to give the same target a second use of smite evil.
I was corrected, and told it would, but am still confused.
Would spells like Bestow Grace of the Champion allow for a second use of Smite Evil if cast on the same target in the same day?
Is it only things that explicitly say X use per day gained, that are now limited?
So basically is this a way to avoid temporary attribute shenanigans to gain and lose ability uses, or I am not understanding?
Also why would Emergency Attunement not work on Paragon Surge? I do not understand sorry.
Sorry for the rambling, and the multiple questions, I guess I had more than one.
I'll tackle them one at a time, based on my readings. These are themselves not official FAQs or errata, and as always, even if they were, feel free to run things however you like in your home game, including ignoring the FAQ. It's why it's yours--to make the changes you like and be as awesome for you and your players as possible!
For bestow grace of the champion, the spell itself gives you one uses of lay on hands and smite. If it instead said "This spell grants you the smite evil ability as a paladin half the caster level" then it would grant you, say 4 smites / day at CL 20, and if you used them all in one spell, you would have none left until the next day. It's a little bit nuanced, I know.
For the feat, it lets you change to another choice when you activate it, but since it is still the same day (unless you manage to keep the spell up for 24 hours somehow), you are obligated to pick all the same choices you picked last time, so you essentially halved your duration for nothing.
I'll tackle them one at a time, based on my readings. These are themselves not official FAQs or errata, and as always, even if they were, feel free to run things however you like in your home game, including ignoring the FAQ. It's why it's yours--to make the changes you like and be as awesome for you and your players as possible!
For bestow grace of the champion, the spell itself gives you one uses of lay on hands and smite. If it instead said "This spell grants you the smite evil ability as a paladin half the caster level" then it would grant you, say 4 smites / day at CL 20, and if you used them all in one spell, you would have none left until the next day. It's a little bit nuanced, I know.
For the feat, it lets you change to another choice when you activate it, but since it is still the same day (unless you manage to keep the spell up for 24 hours somehow), you are obligated to pick all the same choices you picked last time, so you essentially halved your duration for nothing.
Ah I see now. So to be affected by the CRB FAQ it has to specifically call out X uses per day, or increase uses on an existing ability through some method (Ability increase, whatever), or grant the ability tied to an X uses per day mechanic such as caster level or class level. Got it.
From what I believe I now understand about the Paragon Surge FAQ it basically is adding a line to Paragon Surge so it is more like below.
PARAGON SURGE
School transmutation (polymorph); Level alchemist 3, cleric 3, magus 4, paladin 4, sorcerer/wizard 3, witch 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal (half-elf only)
Duration 1 minute/level
You surge with ancestral power, temporarily embodying all the strengths of both elvenkind and humankind simultaneously, and transforming into a paragon of both races, something greater than elf or human alone. Unlike with most polymorph effects, your basic form does not change, so you keep all extraordinary and supernatural abilities of your half-elven form as well as all of your gear.
For the duration of the spell, you receive a +2 enhancement bonus to Dexterity and Intelligence and are treated as if you possessed any one feat for which you meet the prerequisites, chosen when you cast this spell.
This choice of feat is set for 24 hours after the first casting of Paragon surge in a 24 hour period and may not be changed by any means, short of Wish or Miracle.
I believe I get it now and my thanks for your approachability and willingness to clear this up.
...The choice of feat is set...
That's not how I read it at all. As far as I can tell, you can still pick a different feat each time you cast it. The feat you choose just needs to have the same variable for the whole day. So you could get Power Attack with one casting, and Weapon Focus (longsword) with another. You could not however change from Weapon Focus (longsword) to Weapon Focus (heavy mace) in the same day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The choice of feat is set...That's not how I read it at all. As far as I can tell, you can still pick a different feat each time you cast it. The feat you choose just needs to have the same variable for the whole day. So you could get Power Attack with one casting, and Weapon Focus (longsword) with another. You could not however change from Weapon Focus (longsword) to Weapon Focus (heavy mace) in the same day.
Humm,
Half-Elf, paragon surge: Can I cast paragon surge multiple times in a day to gain different benefits?
No. The first time each day that you cast paragon surge, you must select a feat and make all the associated choices that come with it. Once that choice is made, it is set for the day and additional castings must make the exact same decisions.
I took this to mean that the choice both in feat and in any feat based variables could not be changed. I assumed the words "that choice" referred to both.
I can see what you mean however, this is slightly ambiguous.
Well, as I said in my initial post, please expect table variation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The choice of feat is set...That's not how I read it at all. As far as I can tell, you can still pick a different feat each time you cast it. The feat you choose just needs to have the same variable for the whole day. So you could get Power Attack with one casting, and Weapon Focus (longsword) with another. You could not however change from Weapon Focus (longsword) to Weapon Focus (heavy mace) in the same day.Humm,
Half-Elf, paragon surge: Can I cast paragon surge multiple times in a day to gain different benefits?
No. The first time each day that you cast paragon surge, you must select a feat and make all the associated choices that come with it. Once that choice is made, it is set for the day and additional castings must make the exact same decisions.I took this to mean that the choice both in feat and in any feat based variables could not be changed. I assumed the words "that choice" referred to both.
I can see what you mean however, this is slightly ambiguous.
Well, as I said in my initial post, please expect table variation.
It says "that choice" rather than "those choices", so the anaphora must resolve in the way you expected Covent. If it said "those choices", then the anaphora would be slightly ambiguous between your interpretation and RD's (but still favoring yours, since it only happens on the first casting, so with the wording change and under the other interpretation, theoretically you could cast it once for a throwaway feat with no choices and then cast it for feats with choices ever after). Unlike the other things I said above, I know for sure that this is the case.
It says "that choice" rather than "those choices", so the anaphora must resolve in the way you expected Covent. If it said "those choices", then the anaphora would be slightly ambiguous between your interpretation and RD's (but still favoring yours, since it only happens on the first casting, so with the wording change and under the other interpretation, theoretically you could cast it once for a throwaway feat with no choices and then cast it for feats with choices ever after). Unlike the other things I said above, I know for sure that this is the case....The choice of feat is set...That's not how I read it at all. As far as I can tell, you can still pick a different feat each time you cast it. The feat you choose just needs to have the same variable for the whole day. So you could get Power Attack with one casting, and Weapon Focus (longsword) with another. You could not however change from Weapon Focus (longsword) to Weapon Focus (heavy mace) in the same day.Humm,
Half-Elf, paragon surge: Can I cast paragon surge multiple times in a day to gain different benefits?
No. The first time each day that you cast paragon surge, you must select a feat and make all the associated choices that come with it. Once that choice is made, it is set for the day and additional castings must make the exact same decisions.I took this to mean that the choice both in feat and in any feat based variables could not be changed. I assumed the words "that choice" referred to both.
I can see what you mean however, this is slightly ambiguous.
Well, as I said in my initial post, please expect table variation.
My thanks for the clarification. :-)
Wait, which case is the case?
Guys, as you can see from where Joe quoted me above, the point of the FAQ is not only to clarify but also in some cases to sort "ready an action for errata" if you will. Official errata can't appear unless there is a reprint. That's a rule that comes from higher than us. But sometimes, a book takes 3 years to sell out or never sells out. And so it can be helpful to have an FAQ in the meantime.
This actually makes me rather curious about where the rules comes from and why it exists.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PFS. Yeah, I said it.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
For the feat, it lets you change to another choice when you activate it, but since it is still the same day (unless you manage to keep the spell up for 24 hours somehow), you are obligated to pick all the same choices you picked last time, so you essentially halved your duration for nothin
With all due respect this doesn't make sense.
"obligated to pick all the same choices" seems to be something the feat explicitally says you are not obligated to do.
Such a ruling would require an actual FAQ as opposed to this FAQ*
Wait, which case is the case?
Unfortunately, Raving Dork It appears I was correct. While I prefer your interpretation, he has stated that
It says "that choice" rather than "those choices", so the anaphora must resolve in the way you expected Covent
So it looks like the PDT has decided that the feat is part of the choice that cannot be changed.
Paragon Surge takes a hit when it comes to Oracles, via Improved Eldritch Heritage(Arcane) getting stealth nerfed. New FAQ..
Ok... this is weird... see I was all for making Paragon Surge less op... but not letting anyone (except Sorcerer/Wizards) use Improved Eldritch (Arcane) to get spells... seems a bit much. Welp... time to get on board the Imperious Bloodline train. Choo! Choo!