Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the arguement that people spent $30 to get this spell, and now it is being taken away. I would like to see some form of grandfathering.
That said, the fact that people spent $30 dollars of real world money *just* to get this spell is a big part of the reason I want to see it gone. For one thing it really pushes the "Pay to win" aspect of the game in a way that I am very uncomfortable with. For a second, it is *very* hard to convince me that the spell is well balanced when people are willing to spend $30 dollars to buy access to it.
For 3000 gp, one time purchase, you can get 1,999 gp of free material components per game with no strength loss and no spell slots. (pearl of power, blood reservoir of physical prowess
Depending on the GM, Staunching armor is even better. +2 staunching armor would let you get any component up to 999 gp for free. For just 9000 gp. That could really upset spell economy. (Some GMs rule that the str drain of blood money is a part of the price of the spell, if you prevent the str drain, you prevent the spell...)
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
There is also the problem of how blood money interacts with fabricate...
Strength 12, Blood money, Fabricate a 5400 gp diamond (requires a material component of 5400gp worth of diamond.) Sell diamond. 5400 gp every game from 9th level on.
(Fabricate should have been written with a focus, not a material component.)
You could add a bulls strength to that, plus the blood reservoir (to keep you from going unconscious when the bull strength expires), to get an extra 2000 gp.
The Strength damage is miniscule for most spells components - 1 point of strength where you get two back for a night and a heal check. Not to mention another 1d4 for a lesser restoration.
Leaving aside mixed spell list shenanigans when you look at the 1st - 4th level spells that have material components, they almost all create permanent, long duration or until-discharged effects. If the material components are removed then spamming these and saving them up even mid adventure is very possible (by spam I mean cast regularly knowing they will last days). I know PFS by nature limits this possibility but you are still able to effectively create temporary magic items / defences. Why wouldnt you set a symbol up for every battle you were prepared for?
"Arcane Lock, Create Treasure Map, Continual Flame, Magic Mouth, Phantom Trap, Sentry Skull, Masterwork Transformation, Tattoo Potion, Non-detection, Sepia Snake Sigil, Illusory Script, Blood Sentinel, Fire Trap, Stoneskin, Symbol of Revelation, Forgetful slumber, Malicious Spite, Symbol of Laughter, Contingent Scroll, Detonate, Lesser Simulacrum, Animate Dead, Scorching Ash, Symbol of Slowing"
As we all know, wizards do not lack for spell slots even 1st level slots when they reach higher levels 7+.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
The Strength damage is miniscule for most spells components - 1 point of strength where you get two back for a night and a heal check. Not to mention another 1d4 for a lesser restoration.
Leaving aside mixed spell list shenanigans when you look at the 1st - 4th level spells that have material components, they almost all create permanent, long duration or until-discharged effects. If the material components are removed then spamming these and saving them up even mid adventure is very possible (by spam I mean cast regularly knowing they will last days). I know PFS by nature limits this possibility but you are still able to effectively create temporary magic items / defences. Why wouldnt you set a symbol up for every battle you were prepared for?
"Arcane Lock, Create Treasure Map, Continual Flame, Magic Mouth, Phantom Trap, Sentry Skull, Masterwork Transformation, Tattoo Potion, Non-detection, Sepia Snake Sigil, Illusory Script, Blood Sentinel, Fire Trap, Stoneskin, Symbol of Revelation, Forgetful slumber, Malicious Spite, Symbol of Laughter, Contingent Scroll, Detonate, Lesser Simulacrum, Animate Dead, Scorching Ash, Symbol of Slowing"
As we all know, wizards do not lack for spell slots even 1st level slots when they reach higher levels 7+.
Oh god. Can you imagine my early entry bloat mage, with blood money, staunching armor, blood reservoir, and really, any of these spells? Lets start with just giving all the fronliners stoneskin for free.
|
There is also the problem of how blood money interacts with fabricate...
Strength 12, Blood money, Fabricate a 5400 gp diamond (requires a material component of 5400gp worth of diamond.) Sell diamond. 5400 gp every game from 9th level on.
(Fabricate should have been written with a focus, not a material component.)
You could add a bulls strength to that, plus the blood reservoir (to keep you from going unconscious when the bull strength expires), to get an extra 2000 gp.
Honestly, that's an issue with fabricate not blood money.
Fabricate has long been noted as a spell that screws with the economy of the game. Either way in PFS you can not sell items picked up during the adventure. At least, you can not sell items picked up during the adventure and then keep the gold at the end of the adventure. It evaporates into the aether. So this would not work at all.I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the arguement that people spent $30 to get this spell, and now it is being taken away. I would like to see some form of grandfathering.
That said, the fact that people spent $30 dollars of real world money *just* to get this spell is a big part of the reason I want to see it gone. For one thing it really pushes the "Pay to win" aspect of the game in a way that I am very uncomfortable with. For a second, it is *very* hard to convince me that the spell is well balanced when people are willing to spend $30 dollars to buy access to it.
For 3000 gp, one time purchase, you can get 1,999 gp of free material components per game with no strength loss and no spell slots. (pearl of power, blood reservoir of physical prowess
Depending on the GM, Staunching armor is even better. +2 staunching armor would let you get any component up to 999 gp for free. For just 9000 gp. That could really upset spell economy. (Some GMs rule that the str drain of blood money is a part of the price of the spell, if you prevent the str drain, you prevent the spell...)
Also it is not actually defined as a bleed effect, in regards to stanching.
But while you are giving big numbers here as 'free' coin, a wizard isn't going to need more than 499gp for a spell unless he's animating dead or at a level past PFS. He could utilize an expensive fabricate, but he could not make coin off of it nor keep the item created.
A class with raise dead or restoration are the ones who get the most bang for the buck with blood money.
|
|
Oh god. Can you imagine my early entry bloat mage, with blood money, staunching armor, blood reservoir, and really, any of these spells? Lets start with just giving all the fronliners stoneskin for free.The Strength damage is miniscule for most spells components - 1 point of strength where you get two back for a night and a heal check. Not to mention another 1d4 for a lesser restoration.
Leaving aside mixed spell list shenanigans when you look at the 1st - 4th level spells that have material components, they almost all create permanent, long duration or until-discharged effects. If the material components are removed then spamming these and saving them up even mid adventure is very possible (by spam I mean cast regularly knowing they will last days). I know PFS by nature limits this possibility but you are still able to effectively create temporary magic items / defences. Why wouldnt you set a symbol up for every battle you were prepared for?
"Arcane Lock, Create Treasure Map, Continual Flame, Magic Mouth, Phantom Trap, Sentry Skull, Masterwork Transformation, Tattoo Potion, Non-detection, Sepia Snake Sigil, Illusory Script, Blood Sentinel, Fire Trap, Stoneskin, Symbol of Revelation, Forgetful slumber, Malicious Spite, Symbol of Laughter, Contingent Scroll, Detonate, Lesser Simulacrum, Animate Dead, Scorching Ash, Symbol of Slowing"
As we all know, wizards do not lack for spell slots even 1st level slots when they reach higher levels 7+.
You would only need to prevent one point for blood money to be 'free' for casting stoneskin. Or a casting or two of resto after a few castings at 1 str per pop with no prevention. And, honestly, with how Pathfinder rules tend to work, if you prevent a payment then you do not get the effect. Like in the case of Heighten Spell. But that would be a first level and a fourth level spell per casting and possible a resto, which would normally be only a fourth level spell.
And in a home game, the front liners could pay for the spell casting instead of leaving the price of casting only on the caster anyway. Making it free for the caster anyway. But in PFS you can't give gold to other players.
It is no where near as game breaking or powerful as you are making it out to be.
Though, the symbol spells are a powerful choice in very certain situations. Though, normally in PFS you do not have situations conducive to their use.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, there is an FAQ that says that if a magic item creates a thing, you get to keep it. There isn't a ruling on fabricate, and it isn't usually a problem with fabricate, because you need a value of raw material equal to the finished value of your created item, so really, it doesn't mess with the economy unless you have some way to reduce the value of the material components.
Re blood money, You cut your hand, releasing blood and dealing 1d6 damage in the process. If you release enough blood to create a material component worth 1 gp or more you also take strength damage. And it doesn't work if you do not have blood. It would be a fairly easy arguement to make that it is a bleed effect.
For the low cost stuff, that just makes blood money *more* desireable with false focus and other methods to reduce damage. Remember that the blood resivoir can cure one point at a time if needed, which means that you could cast 6 spells per game with material components under 500 gp. That will pay for a blood reservoir and 4 pearls of power in ~6 games. (6 because if you are brave you can use the resivoir to heal 4 points strength damage, then turn one point of strength damage into con damage, and take no penalties.)
So starting at 4th level or so, a mage gets 1500-3000 gp of material components every game.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
But that would be a first level and a fourth level spell per casting and possible a resto, which would normally be only a fourth level spell.
Well, at 8th level, my bloat mage has (on average) 7 4th level spells per day. And first level pearls of power are cheap.
staunching armor aside, a blood reservoir + 3 pearls of power would get me 4 free castings of stone skin per game, for one first level spell slot and one 4th level spell slot. For 5000 gp, I would get 1000 gp free every game. And granted, some of that abuse is from being a bloat mage, but even an ordinary mage should be able to cast 3 or 4 4th level spells at 9th level.
And that is just one spell, I am sure I could find more effective uses if I went through the rest of the spells on that list.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Though, the symbol spells are a powerful choice in very certain situations. Though, normally in PFS you do not have situations conducive to their use.
That isn't actually true.
Put the symbol on the fighters sword. Set the trigger to "look". Attune your party to the spell. Fight starts, he draws the sword, if *any* of the foes see the symbol on the sword, the symbol triggers and all your opponents are slower / affected by laughter / whatever.
If your GM baulks at the sword, and won't agree to any other solution, carry a rat in a cage, and the symbol on a sheet of paper. Move action, pull the paper out of your haversack, and show it to the rat.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
Put the symbol on the fighters sword. Set the trigger to "look". Attune your party to the spell. Fight starts, he draws the sword, if *any* of the foes see the symbol on the sword, the symbol triggers and all your opponents are slower / affected by laughter / whatever.
If your GM baulks at the sword, and won't agree to any other solution, carry a rat in a cage, and the symbol on a sheet of paper. Move action, pull the paper out of your haversack, and show it to the rat.
Symbols cannot be used offensively. All of the symbol spells in the CRB refer back to symbol of death.
You can't use a symbol of death offensively; for instance, a touch-triggered symbol of death remains untriggered if an item bearing the symbol of death is used to touch a creature. Likewise, a symbol of death cannot be placed on a weapon and set to activate when the weapon strikes a foe.
Yes you cannot touch a person with a touch triggered symbol as that it is you offensively activating the spell.
What if you lay a trap on the ground for the gaurds/beast on the other side of the door. What if you put the symbol on a shield with a trigger of come within 10ft of the symbol or looks at the shield?
What if you put a symbol on every single personal possession you have as a way of protecting against thieves?
There is a reason semi-permanent effects have material components - it's because you are effectively creating a magic item. That should have a cost - albeit small in most cases.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
Yes you cannot touch a person with a touch triggered symbol as that it is you offensively activating the spell.
What if you lay a trap on the ground for the gaurds/beast on the other side of the door. What if you put the symbol on a shield with a trigger of come within 10ft of the symbol or looks at the shield?
What if you put a symbol on every single personal possession you have as a way of protecting against thieves?
If you attempt to use the symbol offensively, it doesn't work.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
If expensive spell components are a method to prevent spamming key spells, then blood magic removes this restriction. If you are happy with the spells being spammed then you probably don't have a problem with blood magic.
Str damage for wizards is largely inconsequential and is easily healed in any event.
To be fair, you can't really 'spam' cast a spell using blood money without using separate resources to heal the str damage done. Even then, you are taking up first level slots to do so, one for each casting of a higher level spell you wish to remove the component cost to.
So, to save money, you must use extra resources that are not coin. Some of which may cost coin if you have to wand restos.
Play with the spell sometime, you'll see that it isn't really 'free' unless you only cast it once for a price of less than 500 gp. Even then, you leave yourself more vulnerable to str damage from other sources.
The spell only does something no other class can do when wish becomes relevant.
Before wish, the best use for blood money with a wizard/sorcerer is stoneskin, which means the fighter in the group may get that cast on him more often. Heart of the Metal is a worthy spell to use this strategy on as well. Which is also a party spell.(As, in PFS, the fighter can't pay a wizard for casting spells for him, thus the spell is left only for the caster to pay).
For the witch, raise dead can become 'free' at the cost of requiring restoration casts or for the adventure to be over.
For an oracle, full restos and raise dead work similar to the witch.
And, of course, don't forget... those casts may be used for the party not just for the caster. In fact, most of the best uses for blood money are for casting on other players.
Its usage with animate dead I will bring up lightly, only because animate dead is its own discussion. But, one that is not really sustainable without blood money... though I still believe it needs a 'patch' in PFS outside of casting a secondary spell.
A lot of the really problematic uses for blood money come from the uses, essentially outside of the core scenario:
- After the scenario, when the group is back at the grand lodge, this could result in essentially freerestoration/i], [i]raises dead and in the seeker tier limited wish (not really an issue though).
- Or when the group has 3 weeks of overland travel to the scenario location, what is stopping the necromancer from using his spell slots to arrive with a full undead army (and depending on his build, that can be quite a number of HD)?
And regarding spells like heart of metal nothing is stopping the fighter from buying the material component and/or maybe a scroll of channel the gift.
And that is relevant to the points I made how?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
so what we are now telling players that creative uses of resources is bad because the scenarios did not account for the possibility?
imho as a gm it is not my place to tell a player he/she cant do something just cause it was unexpected, it is my place to roll with it and to tell the player what other effects come into play because of it.
when it comes to magic you will see alot of chaos and creativity, encourage it in my opinion because that is what makes the class fun.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Or when the group has 3 weeks of overland travel to the scenario location, what is stopping the necromancer from using his spell slots to arrive with a full undead armyIt sounds to me like the lack of dead bodies written into the scenario.
Also blood money doesn't change that mechanic.
You will have to provide your own bodies, but ignoring material components is certainly a factor.
I am quite happy, that simulacrum isn't easy to access in PFS (partly because the spell is very GM dependent) of course lesser simulacrum is only a level 4 spell (but that one creates even more questions, like what is the disposition of a lesser simulacrum of the party monk ? ).
Of course, those spells are troublesome on their own, blood money is "just" an enabler, that has an effect on your wealth.
|
Actually, there is an FAQ that says that if a magic item creates a thing, you get to keep it.And every ruling about such occurrences has always been that such items sell for 50% of what you actually paid for them. If you don't pay anything to create that item with fabricate, then you can't sell it for anything.
Just to also add it says magic item not a spell. Casting fabricate does not qualify.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to also add it says magic item not a spell. Casting fabricate does not qualify.Actually, there is an FAQ that says that if a magic item creates a thing, you get to keep it.And every ruling about such occurrences has always been that such items sell for 50% of what you actually paid for them. If you don't pay anything to create that item with fabricate, then you can't sell it for anything.
No infinite gold loops for yoU!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it all matters, I am happy to have the ban in place...the discussion here has basically proven to me that it is over-powered (and I have seen it in use). It is like the old argument that as soon as a character has hit ninth level cleric, with Plane Shift, they should have infinite wealth, since they could just go harvest gold, diamonds, etc., on the elemental plane of earth. (FYI I disagree with that, since the denizens of that plane would not take too kindly to their stuff (or sisters) being stolen in such a way)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that a basic dagger costs fully two pieces of gold is probably the result of massive inflation that resulted from the Plane Shifting clerics who managed to get a bit of Elemental Earth harvesting away before being driven off by denizens of the plane.
That was a long sentence.
|
|
I support the ban mainly due to all the wonky rules issues that surround it. While it can trivialize death to allow it on raise dead and upset the WBL curve, I'm not as worried about that as I am about the timing of spell component usage issue.
Because I'd rather not have to argue with a player over whether raise dead is even a viable target for the spell.
|
|
I support the ban mainly due to all the wonky rules issues that surround it. While it can trivialize death to allow it on raise dead and upset the WBL curve, I'm not as worried about that as I am about the timing of spell component usage issue.
Because I'd rather not have to argue with a player over whether raise dead is even a viable target for the spell.
While it is a bit ridiculous to choose to ban an option because of possible table variation, especially considering the Pathfinder Dev policy of leaving things open on purpose for GM adjudication. There are plenty of worse offenders that do not get hated on like Blood Money.
Also, I will post again...
James Jacob's answer on when components get used when casting
I think it sets a bad precedent to remove options from the "Additional Resources" without grandfathering in old builds. This allows people to rest assured that their real life purchases, will remain legal.
I suppose if something was terribly egregious, there could be a situation where grandfathering would be a bad idea, but this is not one of those cases.
|
|
If it all matters, I am happy to have the ban in place...the discussion here has basically proven to me that it is over-powered (and I have seen it in use). It is like the old argument that as soon as a character has hit ninth level cleric, with Plane Shift, they should have infinite wealth, since they could just go harvest gold, diamonds, etc., on the elemental plane of earth. (FYI I disagree with that, since the denizens of that plane would not take too kindly to their stuff (or sisters) being stolen in such a way)
Many of said denizens literally eat those riches and there is plenty laying around. What riches could fill a players pockets are a mere drop in the bucket. Also, as plane shift has a cast time of 1 standard action... you just need enough time to grab a few things(possibly by summoning earth elementals to do the 'digging' for you) and another cast to get back as soon as something shows up.
But that really isn't what this discussion is about.
|
|
I also support the ban on this spell due to prior table experience.Hey, just because I used it to limited wish the cleric back after we killed the BBEG in Siege of the Diamond City... =)
(The one time I've had the pleasure of meeting Eric was at Gencon when he had the misfortune of running Siege of the Diamond City for a high tier table. It's also, amusingly enough, the only time I've ever cast Blood Money in PFS.)
Blood money would not be able to cover the whole cost in one cast if you used limited wish to simulate raise dead...
Limited wish has a component of a 1500gp diamond. If a spell duplicated has a component worth more than 1000gp(5000gp in the case of raise dead) you must also present that component in addition to limited wish's component. Blood money creates 1 component only. Thus you would either need to quicken another casting of blood money, with the associated str damage, before using limited wish 'free' to duplicate raise dead.
Now, this assumes you used raise dead instead of the GM letting you just say they are alive again... or if by back you mean some other condition that isn't death.
|
|
I support the ban mainly due to all the wonky rules issues that surround it. While it can trivialize death to allow it on raise dead and upset the WBL curve, I'm not as worried about that as I am about the timing of spell component usage issue.
Because I'd rather not have to argue with a player over whether raise dead is even a viable target for the spell.
While it is a bit ridiculous to choose to ban an option because of possible table variation, especially considering the Pathfinder Dev policy of leaving things open on purpose for GM adjudication. There are plenty of worse offenders that do not get hated on like Blood Money.
Also, I will post again...
James Jacob's answer on when components get used when casting
When their exists a high amount of table variance on a variety of issues that have been brought up in the past 100+ posts in this thread, and the question of whether this spell is worth the hassle of having it in PFS, then it seems prudent to remove it.
While I sympathize with those that spent money on the RotRL Anniversary Ed. Book/PDF for the spell, in my opinion the campaign is better served by the removal of this spell. And by judging from this thread, it appears that the majority of the community feels the same. There is a very vocal minority of players arguing for the retention of this spell.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to keep harping on this issue, because James Jacobs is a very knowledgeable guy, and intrinsically linked to Pathfinder and Golarion lore specifically. He also has direct access to the design team as they work in the same office. So any ruling he comes up with should certainly be given weight. But he himself has said numerous times, that he isn't a rules guy and his answers are just how he'd rule it in his campaign. Certainly a very informed opinion, but not a binding one on PFS.
|
|
I support the ban mainly due to all the wonky rules issues that surround it. While it can trivialize death to allow it on raise dead and upset the WBL curve, I'm not as worried about that as I am about the timing of spell component usage issue.
Because I'd rather not have to argue with a player over whether raise dead is even a viable target for the spell.
While it is a bit ridiculous to choose to ban an option because of possible table variation, especially considering the Pathfinder Dev policy of leaving things open on purpose for GM adjudication. There are plenty of worse offenders that do not get hated on like Blood Money.
Also, I will post again...
James Jacob's answer on when components get used when castingWhen their exists a high amount of table variance on a variety of issues that have been brought up in the past 100+ posts in this thread, and the question of whether this spell is worth the hassle of having it in PFS, then it seems prudent to remove it.
While I sympathize with those that spent money on the RotRL Anniversary Ed. Book/PDF for the spell, in my opinion the campaign is better served by the removal of this spell. And by judging from this thread, it appears that the majority of the community feels the same. There is a very vocal minority of players arguing for the retention of this spell.
There has not been a variety of table variation brought up. Now, there have been some misinformation, but I've been trying to clear that up a post at a time.
The only real issue is whether or not a spell uses a component on begining to cast or at end of cast.Also, if what you say is true, there would be a MASS pruning of what is allowed in the game. Seriously, like half the game would be banned if it were up to whether or not everyone agreed on how every rule works. A Paizo employee has even called this argument ridiculous.
|
|
I don't want to keep harping on this issue, because James Jacobs is a very knowledgeable guy, and intrinsically linked to Pathfinder and Golarion lore specifically. He also has direct access to t g eyes design team as they work in the same office. So any ruling he comes up with should certainly be given weight. But he himself has said numerous times, that he isn't a rules guy and his answers are just how he'd rule it in his campaign. Certainly a very informed opinion, but not a binding one on PFS.
True. His words on the subject are not binding. As usual with questions the Devs don't answer(Which are many) it is up to the GM to make a judgement call.
And, it is not hard to ask at the beginning of a game about any possible table variation issues. I know I already do that and I've seen plenty of others do that as well. So it's a sort of non-issue really whether or not spells use components at start or end of casting, at least no more so than any other table variation laden option out there.|
|
This is the type of thing though that is not often brought up prior to play, even when you ask at the beginning what special things they do. Something I make a habit of, to try and resolve differences of opinion before we start play. But unless they make a habit of using this spell regularly, it doesn't come up. And I've had some folks really offended when I interpret things differently than them.
|
|
Limited wish has a component of a 1500gp diamond. If a spell duplicated has a component worth more than 1000gp(5000gp in the case of raise dead) you must also present that component in addition to limited wish's component. Blood money creates 1 component only. Thus you would either need to quicken another casting of blood money, with the associated str damage, before using limited wish 'free' to duplicate raise dead.He ruled similarly. I happen to disagree with that interpretation, but I'll happily take a raise dead for 1500gp, plus free restorations.
It's not an interpretation. It is quite very literally what the spells say.
Limited Wish says:
...
"When a limited wish spell duplicates a spell with a material component that costs more than 1,000 gp, you must provide that component (in addition to the 1,500 gp diamond component for this spell)"
...
When you must provide one thing and then provide a thing in addition to the earlier thing... that is two things. No way around that. Even if the two things are similiar, in that both spells in this case require diamonds of different values. A diamond is used up by limited wish. Then another diamond is used up by the simulated effect.
Blood money says:
...
"Effect 1 material component"
...
"your blood transforms into one material component of your choice required by that second spell."
...
Of course if you were a witch, or a divine caster who could slip Blood Money onto either a divine casting class's spell list or take a dip in a class with Blood Money then you wouldn't even need the 1500gp cost.
Or you could be a paladin with a feat or have some other ability that lets you cast resto or raise dead without a material cost.
|
|
If there is one way to read the rules so that something does nothing, doesn't work, or malfunctions and another way to read it so that it does what its supposed to do, go with the second.
This is generally true, yes. However not all options work 100% of the time. Indeed some things are written to only work with certain types of other things.
So it is completely valid to say that blood money may not work with certain spells.
|
|
If there is one way to read the rules so that something does nothing, doesn't work, or malfunctions and another way to read it so that it does what its supposed to do, go with the second.This is generally true, yes. However not all options work 100% of the time. Indeed some things are written to only work with certain types of other things.
So it is completely valid to say that blood money may not work with certain spells.
Absolutely true. Though, to arbitrarily say Blood Money can not provide a material component for one spell, but it does provide for another without any rule backing is not valid outside of a home game. Blood money does not interact with spells. It merely provides material components.
But, to say that blood money can not be used on any spell that takes longer than one round is a valid judgement one can make by saying that material components are not used up upon beginning casting. This, of course, means that characters can steal 5000gp diamonds during a rez casting by other characters. But, eh, the lion's share of GMs aren't jerks enough to use that against players.
|
|
That penalty only happens if someone is trying to cast the extended time spells in combat. In that case, an enemy might surely try to disarm, steal, or sunder the diamond. I've sundered a scroll of breath of life before. But only because the BBEG was desperate that the dead negative channeler would not get back up.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there is one way to read the rules so that something does nothing, doesn't work, or malfunctions and another way to read it so that it does what its supposed to do, go with the second.This is generally true, yes. However not all options work 100% of the time. Indeed some things are written to only work with certain types of other things.
So it is completely valid to say that blood money may not work with certain spells.
I agree with Andrew, the power and WBL argument aside (and frankly I have stated my views on that point), this is very much an issue of table variation.
Just imagine a GM having to tell they your players, that their plan to raise all those fallen party members won't work. Suddenly that GM is in a very ugly situation, either he follows an interpretation of the rules (with all those other consequences the come from it) or he uses his best judgement... which might result in some very serious circumstances ...staying serious.
It gets worse when the same GM has already made a ruling on the very same unclear situation at a previous table, and now would have to rule differently.
---
And regarding that James Jacobs post, I really like and respect his opinions on a variety of issues, but often mentions that his answers are just his personal view (I assume a big reason, is professional courtesy ie. not his primary department)
---
Frankly the ban seems justified based on the power of the spell alone an the effect on WBL (there really is no way to farm money in PFS, and avoiding to spend money is quite similar), but the table variation bit is just as troublesome.
Best case scenario for some of in this thread, the spell becomes legal again, but is limited to work with a rather short list of spells.
And to add some more issues, can you use blood money while you are polymorphed ? Do oozes have blood ?
Actually if your BBEG manages to posses the party barbarian for a round (before the group uses their countermeasures) is there anything that prevents the cater from casting blood money to "waste" 24 points of strength damage ? ^^
For example, a sorcerer with the spell stoneskin prepared could cast blood money to create the 250 gp worth of diamond dust required by that spell, taking 1d6 points of damage and 1 point of Strength damage in the process.
How exactly does a sorcerer have stoneskin "prepaired"? Does he need wizard levels ?
If you are capable of receiving strength damage, but the actually damage is prevented by another effect, does the spell even work ?
---
Some of those might be more unlikely than others, and frankly the possession trick is a rather nasty surprise, but yeah that is certainly the bad kind of table variation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just imagine a GM having to tell they your players, that their plan to raise all those fallen party members won't work. Suddenly that GM is in a very ugly situation, either he follows an interpretation of the rules (with all those other consequences the come from it) or he uses his best judgement... which might result in some very serious circumstances ...staying serious.
There's a reason this is my GM alias. It's my way of staying confident in the face of such situations.
...also, because I am Law. Suck it, players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just imagine a GM having to tell they your players, that their plan to raise all those fallen party members won't work. Suddenly that GM is in a very ugly situation, either he follows an interpretation of the rules (with all those other consequences the come from it) or he uses his best judgement... which might result in some very serious circumstances ...staying serious.There's a reason this is my GM alias. It's my way of staying confident in the face of such situations.
...also, because I am Law. Suck it, players.
Most likely this is a joke, but i find this attitude even n joke form offensive.
You are here to play together under an equal understanding of the rules. Players should understand why you rule a certain way. Saying you are the law and you do not respect that they should understand your ruling I find disgusting.
Now time constraints and communication skills prevent this often. I understand, but I am law is directing excusing poor behavior out of ego and that is not acceptable.