Dracon's page

Quite simply for me, pathfinder (paizo) is doing all the right things, releasing good quality products and supporting their lines in a myriad of ways.

If the D&D brand is in such trouble, I would not want Paizo to pick it up. It can stand on its own two feet now and does not need a supporting leg from a once grand name.

Oh err what to expect from my character...

Well from Amrasan I expect him to be the named foe killer he was born to be, my backup characters hopefully wont need to make the journey from bag to table unless something unfortunate takes a liking to the hulking front man.

Drac.

Myself and four of my gaming group are playing every slot Thod so maybe we'll end up on the same table at some point. Were going for the curry too so say hi lol.

One of the aforementioned four folk, really looking forward to it, will be a good break for a hectic week. Although feel like Im packing for a holiday!

Drac.

With the costs involved when rebinding, may be more cost effective to take the hit and rebuy.

Sorry to hear of the death of one of the tomes!

Im glad they decided on one book though to be honest rather than two, two is firstly an excuse for it to cost more overall and in comparison the big tome is very reasonably priced to other/previous game editions, plus I like my one repository of information, I dont have to keep referring to other books when rules overlap or need further explaining for a GM's use.

Plus it has other uses, i.e repelling a burglar from your home by using it as a weapon :), acting as a bullet shield should someone try to shoot you on the way home from a session...

Drac.

That is true, and for those groups it is useful to have a magical healer as a saftey net. But for you? I expect nothing less than something the CharOps posters would be proud of :)

I think some of our new players giving me a run for my money there!

In that adventure setting we have ZERO healing and therefore no mistakes can ever be made which is alright if the dice gods favour you.

True, you have no magical healing in the party, but you do have some access to a cleric (even a temple) for healing (and that has been used).

In fact that is a nice way to have NPCs provide healing, without having to have the NPC trail along with the party - as long as the characters can make it back to their guide / temple / shrine etc they get healing.

Not gonna dispute this, it works for us, my point is mainly that we can get away with it as we have 3 very experienced and one new player who is being "tutored" as we go :)

One of my main points relating to the opening post is that everyone should break away from this stereotyping, your cleric doesnt have to be a healing battery, make a fighter that isnt all about toe to toe roll dice hit yawn, give him some personality what about a pure crowd control, no one gets past me fighter to protect your wizards (multiple attacks of opportunity with hold the line, stopping enemies from continuing on a hit etc) or a purely ranged specialist, build an arcane wizard that would give the duskblade a run for its money.

For instance with my Cleric (I had to take it as everyone else wanted the other classes and we are a big party facing tough encounters so balance was good), I make sure Im as good as I can be for everyone else at my core role but I never ever take a healing spell - you can spontaneously convert so why bother. I have built him to be able to hold his own on the front line with fighters, I have built him to be able to use fireball/burning hands and offensive spell casting to supplement the arcane types, I can boost people to silly levels to make them excel. I have chosen Fire and Healing domain and my feats boost my channelling to silly levels, can do it often and use tricks like damaging and healing at same time, selective channelling, forked channelling etc. All my heal spells are empowered etc etc.

All in all, what started as a stereotypical cleric is now a foundation of a party, we need more arcane offence? Nay worries bam fireball, burning hands, strength for fighters etc. We need more boosting, nay worries im your cleric go my fighters and kick arse. You need me to hold the front? Nay worries im tough enough to stand in for a while.

I would like sometimes to get bored, but there is always something a well built Cleric can do.

To be fair whilst we play and plan to play in all the adventure paths, our GM for the APs (group with everyone being a GM :| so multiple settings/campaigns) absolutely loves just reading them let alone running.

Even information we as players will most likely never know, I am sure he would read them if we all ran off and left the country!

Drac.

My worst Evil GM thing is rolling my attacks right in front of my players. They see my natural 20s and fate takes a turn for the worst.

Tough Love.

I often do that :) but then I also will roll really important saves for NPCs when a fight is turning epic and its a deal changer on the one save. It builds some trust too.

Im quite a level GM in the evil stakes but in my opinion in any game there is nothing more evil than a simple deck of many things (old school).

That quite simply is a recipe for a party exploding.

Drac.

I would like to see a pure break from the Wizards style release of new editions (3 - 3.5 i.e update to 3rd - completely different 4th). I like to have long established games which build a long standing community in regards to conventions and home games. Release updates to rules perhaps but no complete edition changes for a long long long time, we have all seen the division and splits alongside the edition arguments that thankfully have now drifted away.

Pathfinder has not been out that long, is gaining a lot of popularity including new blood to the genre so hopefully its got a lot of life left in version one yet, it has certainly established itself! For instance our wholesale supplier of RPG products (we buy a lot of stuff :) ) has said to us that pathfinder products are selling evenly now with 4th edition.

Drac.

If your GM is using a pre-written adventure and isn't willing to modify it to fit the party composition then it may be difficult.

However, a good GM who is willing to write their own scenarios should be able to tailor those around the party so that it doesn't matter that the party doesn't contain a cleric or rogue or fighter etc.

Mind you some players seem so brainwashed into thinking "we need a cleric" that they persist in this despite the GM saying it isn't necessary. I had that in one of my groups and I just said "I will write the scenario so that you will struggle through - it will be a challenge. If you have a cleric I will likely up the number of encounters of number of opponents to result in the same effect".

This is one reason I like D&D 4e, even if you do need the typical party composition, a "healer" doesn't need to be a cleric - you can be a Warlord or Artificer as well.

To be fair, being in that brainwashed group I thought I would offer up a slightly different viewpoint. Firstly not all groups are equal, not all groups are fully experienced folk who know how to roll with the punches in game and to take advantage of things to offset having no healing. In that adventure setting we have ZERO healing and therefore no mistakes can ever be made which is alright if the dice gods favour you. Other groups I know would be dead third encounter in even with the GM pulling the encounters.

Clerics are not pure healing batteries folks. I play one in a pathfinder campaign, for the record i have done a) the most damage dealt and b) the most enemy deaths as well as being available for healing and restorations etc. If you really feel like your purely filling in an archetype you are not building characters to the best of your ability or with any interesting features in mind.

Prewritten adventures usually are balanced for the archtypes purely by their nature. Therefore you need a GM to put in the work and the players to at least be savvy enough to get through.

Also in regards to
"This is one reason I like D&D 4e, even if you do need the typical party composition, a "healer" doesn't need to be a cleric - you can be a Warlord or Artificer as well."

You know this is true of 4E, 3.5, Pathfinder, other D20 systems. Its just that the best pure healer is always a cleric.

Drac.

But what about noticing that the weird markings on that black monolith are actually an extensive configuration of the "local" solar system? Is it a knowledge check?.. intel check?...perception check?

Elo

In this case I would if they were not "actively" searching the monolith, roll the perception for them to spot it first (I have all the skills necessary from each character sheet), or if they were actively searching allow them to make their own perception roll cause I am nice like that ;)

Then I would explain what they see, with as many descriptive words as possible, let them draw whatever conclusions before responding to their queries or asking for the appropriate knowledge check when needed. This could come under knowledge local/planar/arcana even , different knowledges give different information obviously if something can be garnered from it.

I would only fall back to an int/wis check if they all failed something or no one had any specific knowledge and even if passed I would only give a small tidbit of information.

Also just a note to the general board or new players, remember if it was an adventure necessity to make out what that monolith was denoting, you should never do it in such a way that your adventure cant continue just because they failed some rolls. At least give them something to progress forward, even if they have to follow it up with some research.

After reading it, there is technically no mention of not being able to try to grapple them but they do have good escape artist and CMDs. However some things to consider...

From subtype:
An elemental is composed entirely from one of the four classical elements air, earth, fire or water.

"looks like a living mobile bonfire, tongues of flame reaching out in search of things to burn"

"This translucent creatures shape SHIFTS between spinning columns of water and a crashing wave. The elementals touch is a Ex ability drench.

1) Fire elemental is composed of fire, you can attempt to grapple it fine, but your going to burn and probably catch fire.

2) You may drown grappling the water elemental and soak all your equipment and scrolls.

I'm all for creative DMs and gamers -- just realize that you're changing a whole lot more than you think you're changing with every little "common sense" "you can't grapple a cloud" houserule.

I didn't say "I hope you change their CR and monster chart" to be snarky. I was genuine. If you make a monster harder than the rules state it should be, it should give a greater reward. If you make a monster a better combatant than the rules state it should be, you need to make sure all the other rules reflect that.

Not saying your being snarky etc as its your opinion. I have now asked multiple players of our group. None would even think of grappling pure flame or water. I honestly dont think the CR needs altering but if you do, then do so. I realise the effect of many changes to the rules, simply because I run for a group with very experience players, some of whom are well establish and well known convention GMs as well as home GMs, I dont give across rule viewpoints lightly :). In fact having all these wierd and wonderful encounters that require different tactics is what makes D&D/pathfinder what it is.

I dont see it as a house rule either, just because the rules dont state every nuance does not mean everything common sense is automatically a house rule. There is not a rulebook in existence that covers every eventuality. There is a presumption that the DM will use the rules as a framework only, in situations where it cannot be predicted what is going to happen. The insistance of some to use RAW only, in the face of creative problem solving in my opinion makes peoples lives harder.

Its whatever you want for your game after all.

I am thankful we never have issues of RAW vs anything else, its makes our gaming lives so much easier.

On the subject of swarms, it is subjective to the swarm type and the type of entangling material in my opinion.

i.e Swarm of flies vs web, okay I as DM would rule it would lessen the size of swarms a bit. After all thats what web was designed in nature for right? Vs roots, flies just fly through.

Swarm of spiders vs more or less anything..imo no chance.

So make a decision based upon what it is and what the players are trying to use.

In terms of grappling, an Elemental is the raw element incarnate. Does the description of the fire elemental through the editions not state it is like living, free moving flame?

Whilst RAW states you cannot move when grappled and you then apply to elementals just because they have no exclusion, it also doesnt state any exclusion for light sensitivity in any solar eclipse of the year, we all know it goes darker when the moons in front right, doesnt say it though..(Forgotten Realms has full calendar of events ;) )

Common sense is greater than RAW in my opinion so for instance

Grapple a fire elemental. Is your character mental? Grappling living flame thats going to burn you and set you alight? Think thats a will save to even attempt it (unless fireproof). Grappling a cloud? Pretty sure you cant, thats why those bottles were great in earlier editions, suck air elemental into bottle job done. Grappling water? Come on, whilst it has form it is the pure element given living form...its going to be able to change its form as needed.

Now perhaps if you freeze the water..hell then as a DM I would probably allow the grapple but you have changed its condition. I would even say its been slowed etc.

Which leads to the most important requirement for good games, a creative DM and creative players with a dose of common sense.

And if you ask my opinion, I greatly dislike to have dozens of house rules to make the game better and balanced. Isn't that quite like saying "this and this is wrong", thus decreasing the quality of the product altogether? I think it is.

See what your saying but to me its more like "this and this is wrong" in my game is all and then you house rule it.

I see combat expertise in the light that if you take just this feat, okay its a relatively good feat, especially if stacked with dodge, possibly even others like mobility etc vs AOO, however its a stepping stone to creating the more tactically rounded and to me, more entertaining fighter who has far more options.

Everything is always just an opinion though, and the main rule is that the rulebook isnt the be all and end all...its your game at the end of day, change what you want.

When an evil cleric is channeling negative energy his targets get a will save for half effect, but a good cleric healing them afterwards gets to do it without a save for half.

Another way of looking at it.

So in two living parties, one with evil and one with good cleric...on a negative channel even the baddies will get a will save...one for the evil side...

When the good cleric channels...the evil guys dont need a will save...they just get healed..

I think I am right in thinking that whilst the evil cleric cant spontaneously cast cures he/she can still prepare some. There arent evil armies around without healers after all.

It seems to me it all comes down to tactics.

Personally dont see the problem evil vs good.

If good heals without selective channelling everyone gets healed including the evil clerics living buddies. If evil channels, everyone gets hurt, even the evil clerics living buddies...

Whats the issue of balance in that regard? And whilst yes the good cleric can boost healing with spontaneous casts, great..thats your cleric turned into a healing battery and healing one person a round to prevent healing the bad guys (without selective channel) will most likely not keep pace with the evil cleric and his party damaging you. I would be disappointed however if tactics in fights purely came down to channelling.

In fact seeing as parties very rarely travel with undead the Evil cleric has a big advantage when travelling round with an undead retinue.

Doesnt need altering and in cleric vs cleric battles who insist on using all their channels (we are more than a healing battery folks, my Cleric of Sarenrae is pretty evil in close combat and has a fair amount of good spells too) it will obviously turn into a "who runs out of channels first".

Forgive me its late and we just played and ny brian is no working.

So when you tumble THROUGH an enemy space the check is 5 = CMD.

That is easy but it seems that the only pronlem with failure is just an attack of opprotunity.

So regaurdless of roll you can move through enemy space with acrobatics? Its just a question of do you get attacked?

The fundamental rule is you cannot move through an enemy, your tumble is trying to bypass that and so I say the fail signifies he has not let you through.

As with overrun, you cannot move through an enemy square normally and I would say if you fail the attempt this rule comes into force. Also if you are hit you are stopped in the space the AOO hit you anyway which likely will be before you manage to pass through. I personally believe in that specific case you cant move through as you have effectively been body blocked to signify your fail. If you are moving around the enemy the failure is just the AOO, i.e would be easier to dance around the foe even if you get an AOO going off.

Thats my thoughts.

A grappler with a bite gets a bonus in that it can grapple with two hands (thereby not getting -4 to the grapple attack attempt) then use its bite damage upon the completion of each successful grapple thereafter.

Exactly how do grapples work with respect to Full-Round Attack Actions?

The rules state

"grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform"

If a creature has 2 claw attacks (but one claw is "grappled"), can the creature still make a full-round attack action? Obviously it cannot use both claws, but can it make both attacks with one claw?

Unless the creature is of sufficient BAB to garner second attacks with one hand it is accepted that it is using the offhand attack rule, also as shown in earlier discussions the grappled cannot take a full attack action as the rules state, may make AN attack. This is because a full attack needs all your attention for the round, when grappled your trying to grapple and attack so cant really justify full attack.

Also its not -4 to all attacks, its -2 to attack with a weapon etc when your in the grappled condition, the -4 is for the grapple action to actually grapple when done one handed. There is also a -4 to dexterity when grappled which applies to those using dex instead of strength so then you would have a -4 to attack with a sword in that case and obviously your CMD is affected by the dex drop.

What about a guy with a sword and shield? If he attacks his grappler with the sword, does it mean he loses his shield bonus to AC (since then that arm is grappled) - or vice versa - if he uses the shield to defend himself, he cannot use the sword to make attacks anymore.

Well his shield doesnt help in defence against the grappler anyway as its all down to CMB/CMD but you could take it either way vs a third party attacking into the grapple. The shield still covers a large part of the body, it just does not affect the starter of the grapple. I will definitely be checking this when I get home.

Presumably a two-weapon-wielder can chose which weapon he still wants available to do attacks with, but do "two-weapon fighting" feats (such as two-weapon defense) still apply?

To cover all aspects, unless its a bastard sword or he is large he cant wield a two handed sword one handed or do any two handed feats as the one hand only rule trumps them. In terms of two weapon defense, its a no as you cant use both hands. Havent got rulebook here but he could drop the sword and draw another possibly if you dont like the one currently in hand.

Or, for that matter, does the grappler have the choice of which arm is "disabled" during the grapple? i.e. the grappler can specifically target the sword arm of his target during the grapple?

Think this may be looking too deep, you could house rule it but I believe it is assumed you would keep the stronger arm more protected than the other when being grappled and so would always have that free. So normally just say right hand is free unless you want a left handed character :)

The rules as intended and as they should be interpreted are that you only get to cast 0 level spells at will. Once they're prepared with higher level spell slots, they follow all the rules for how higher level spell slots work.

Allowing all cantrips to be cast at will despite that spell slot you used to prepare the spell is an interesting house rule, though.

EDIT: And do try to remain level-headed and non-insulting in this thread. We built the game for folks to have fun with, not as a matrix upon which to build and maintain flame wars.

Thanks for coming over and clarifying it all, appreciate it. I do think this thread has caused an interesting debate and I don't think that anyone has got out of hand, it has even raised some good future house rules or combinations for others to look into and see if they are happy to use.

Can a pinned character be coup de grace'd?

Pinned doesn't state "helpless" - but it does state that the target cannot move and is tightly bound.

And the "helpless" condition says that you are helpless if you are bound or held.

Havent got the rulebook handy at the minute but Id say yes by a third party not involved in the grapple.

At the least it makes the grappled not so confident when not trying to escape :)

Lets try some clarification. Essentially as a sorcerer you're not expending spells but spell slots. If you use metamagic on a cantrip, you are using a level 1 spell slot to cast it

True.

, which means you run out of level 1 spell slots after you shoot them all.

Well, no. Sorcerer is pretty clear about not having anything called a 0-level slot. Cantrips for a sorcerer say they don't consume any slots and can be used again.

There is an issue here, he said level 1 slot not level 0 slot as the cantrip is at level 1 for casting.

See pages 1-4 of this thread for why empty words don't take this discussion anywhere. If you have any proof of your claims feel free to share them.

I have seen perfect proof of both sides here, Im sorry but you are not the only one who has posted proof validating their viewpoint from the rules. Dismissing out of hand is not fair to any of the previous posters simply because it doesnt fit your view of the ruling.

Which trumps which? It being a Cantrip or it being cast as a higher level spell?

Thats the important bit, and fits the read whatever you want, until one of the writers comes on, just play with whatever fits your group I guess :) However there is no way I can now see anyone giving up their viewpoint without writer interaction because everyone believes their viewpoint is right and both sides can manipulate text to say what they want - catch 22 :).

I doubt this will rank highly enough for say Jason to come in and give an explanation of what he meant when he developed the book.

I think this prooves people will read the bits they want to read and neglect the others that dont fit so just play the game how you want to play it I guess :)

It never said change the level for purposed of effective level etc it said it is cast at the higher level and prepared at higher level which counteracts the unlimited effect and comes off the higher level tally.

I do however like the idea of if you want another cantrip at will, give up a level one spell slot (as you suggested earlier Digitalmage).

Seems a fair return.

In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. [Emphasis mine.]

So a cantrip affected with metamagic is cast as if it were a higher-level spell, even though it otherwise operates at it original level.

Did people miss this post? I can see it plain as day in plain english..."prepared and cast as a higher level spell" so therefore as Epic Meepo stated..it aint a cantrip when cast therefore the rule of unlimited doesnt apply.

Seeing as its RAW and from the beloved PRD I cant see how it can be disputed personally by those who like the rules exactly as they are written.

As guessed in mine Digitalmage it wont be allowed for the cleric or your party evoker, even though its "minor" as some people call it simply because I dont believe its in the spirit of the game, or indeed a valid "reading" of the rules in this case.

Already people have suggested good ideas, need to defend that town, create ice walls, prepare thousands upon thousands of permanent prestigitations to offput the enemy etc etc.

IMHO the grapple rules are much easier to handle than the clunky 3.5 ones, but still could have profited from a few more weeks of play-testing, re-estimation and much improved phrasing.

But there, deadlines seem to have gotten in the way.

Agree on the easier to handle definitely but then again, they could have taken another six months but something will always get past the proof readers, I dont know a rules system anywhere that didnt have some kind of hole for players to try and fill.

No one is flawless obviously and both a strength and pain in the backside ;) of humanity is its multitude of different opinions/interpretations etc :)

I like my Pathfinder cooked myself. Everything I have put across re common sense and RAW is simply my own viewpoint and as you guessed I am not in the words as written rules trump everything camp especially in the case of keeping games going - even in cons.

Each to their own though, I know what your saying. In my experience of PF society though, thankfully UK con was largely fun of players turning up to Roleplay and have a good time and not one issue of RAW going against DM raised its head. People asked, DM gave state of play, we all moved on.

Maybe it is a game in of itself, you know I am a bugger for finding the good combinations sometimes and dastardly lucky with dice but to me the game is finding combinations rather than cryptically analysing wording to find in what way I can bend it ;)

Thats perhaps why it comes a cross a bit that I dont like the RAW fixation :)

Have a good one.

Nothing annoys me more that players wanting to re-roll init every round, citing arguments about it being more 'realistic'. It makes no statistical difference, breaks a number of other areas of the game and greatly increases book-keeping.

Keep combat rules simple and abstract and let the DM add the flavour.

So, roll at the start for the players, one roll shared for all the mooks and PCs henchmen, and specific NPC enemies get a roll.

Definitely agree, once per encounter to me is better as you still have the refocus options etc. If your on the back foot its hard to get back from it, hence refocus.

I'm having a bit of a bust up at the mo' with my playing group over initiative. Frankly I'm bored of it, I'm more intrested in playing the game than chucking bits of oddly shaped plastic around, so I thought I would ask how othres handle it.

At the mo' we run with the players rolling for each player each round and the DM doing the same for each block of critters. IMO this is labor intensive and favours the players slightly. The suggestion of running it with RAW was made, tried and the complaints were made.
The complaints mainly revolved about fighting by rota and players enjoying the uncertainty whereas the DM liked it cos there was less bookkeeping.
What do others do and why please?

We stick with the roll for players and for each block of monsters (say if cleric leading skeletons, skeletons get one roll, cleric gets his own). we do this purely because it gives every player a chance to be first off the mark sometimes, makes the combats a bit more dynamic, uncertain, less "by the book". Only once per encounter and its made easy to track using that GM Tools magnetic tracker that paizo sell.

Plus it brings in interesting situations where if only someone can get highest initiative to do a certain something thats really needed to turn the fight your way. As an individual you cannot keep you eye on the ball 24/7 and never make a mistake, so why should you always go first in a combat situation is my take on it.

For one - the teleports are : verbal. And preventing speech is not an option anymore in PF. Never mind Magic items.

Preventing speech not an option? I think thats RAW or the absense of some words taken too far. In pathfinder worlds do people forget that others have a mouth? Its just common sense that it should be an option after a pin or if there are two characters grappling one. Just because something is not explicitly written about does not rule it out. If your uncomfortable with that, class it as a house rule. They still have to pass concentration check too so its not a guaranteed definite successful spell. No one side should always win so I like the fact there are ways around things, I personally dont see a massive one sided flaw.

The pinned next round situation, bear in mind the grappled person is at -4 dex which affects CMD but not CMB unless its tiny (and then its in trouble due to size anyway), so the grappled is really facing a +7 disadvantage overall so theres a damn good chance grappler going to stay in control. But as we know in real life, grapples are very fluid and should not be a combat option entered into lightly in my opinion.

As for touch attacks via spells etc, technically speaking you have to charge the spell in hand thereby you would still have to attack with that hand, its not an automatic hit and its not saying you get the spell off.

I do think people are looking far too much into small things and a few wording issues, lets face it anything can be twisted round and round till it means what the reader wants, no matter how good the paizo writers are.

The DM in our games always has the final say and its his/her game, I cant believe so many groups have big discussions, to and fro-ing thereby slowing down games but maybe our group is a rarity. Even down to silly things like the diagonal moving rules, I use them when DMing, the other Pathfinder DM hates them and its just always one square no matter the direction/orientation for five foot. Point is as long as everyone including monsters using same rules, their game is their game.

For instance:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two.

The wording on cleave and vital strike perhaps needed tightening.

I was wondering if, by RAW, you could charge up to these hapless guys and make a vital strike and a cleave in the same round, maybe sprinkle it with a touch of Power Attack? Sort of a thing you'd like your average barbarian or fighter to do, once in a little while...

Jason I believe answered in a different thread that as vital and cleave take standard action to initiate you therefore cannot combine with cleave or a charge as you only get one standard action a turn.

Cant see why you couldnt use power attack though as thats just a modifier rather than a full action replacement.

Dracon wrote:

The first level would cast at an "effective level of 0" thereby reducing number of missiles/damage and save dc but it states,

Quote:

A Sanctum spell uses a spell slot of the same level.

it does not alter the slot of the spell so technically its still used up thereby no infinite,

Number of missiles is based on caster level, not spell level.

Save DC is not present in magic missile.

Spell slot used is irrelevant with RAW and and infinite cantrips. Spell level is not.

Just giving broad examples on number of missiles etc, not stating full spell descriptions here. Flame missile from one of the non wizards books has a save dc for example.

Im going to sign off here by simply saying:

Effective level does not equal actual level so the point still stands re infinite spells

Twist away my friend twist away.

Dracon wrote:

If we were playing hockey I think a sin bin would be in order ;)

Is that a threat? My google-fu brings up descriptions of violent play.

Edit: Dracon, the sanctum spells would be cast outside the sanctum, thus turning 1st level spells into 0th level spells.

On the edit yeah it would reduce a 1st level sanctumed spell to 0 slot which would then by RAW apply unlimited casts.

But then I suppose if we were playing nice ;)

The first level would cast at an "effective level of 0" thereby reducing number of missiles/damage etc but it states,

A Sanctum spell uses a spell slot of the same level.

it does not alter the slot of the spell so technically its still used up thereby no infinite,

Dracon wrote:

If we were playing hockey I think a sin bin would be in order ;)

Is that a threat? My google-fu brings up descriptions of violent play.

Well you going to sin bin implies you were the one who committed the foul and were given 1 minute off play ;)

Dont know the ins and outs I dont watch/play hockey lol

Darn. I thought this was a funny harmless loophole.

Now it gets kind of bad.

Add Sanctum Spell from Complete Arcane. Now you have infinite 1st level spells.

Unlike cantrips, those can be used for something other than some weird fun.

Sanctum spell raises the caster level and the effective spell level of the spell by 1 when cast within the defined sanctum, and lowers it by 1 when cast outside of the sanctum. A Sanctum spell uses a spell slot of the same level.

Not fantastic though as it raises the "effective spell level" within the sanctum so wouldnt garner you a great boost as to me its like garnering you a plus 1 save dc on that cantrip at will unlimited, but I see where your coming from.

So would be great for getting another d6 on fireball but apart from that you still only have so many fireballs or whatever.

Darn. I thought this was a funny harmless loophole.

Now it gets kind of bad.

Add Sanctum Spell from Complete Arcane. Now you have infinite 1st level spells.

Unlike cantrips, those can be used for something other than some weird fun.

If we were playing hockey I think a sin bin would be in order ;)

Dracon wrote:

Besides as they say in star wars, they are a bit of a trap and in reality aint that fantastic.

yes, I have been reading up on some threads about them (the comparison with Warlock was made there as well).

So, although we have initially reacted with horror at the OP's suggestion of interpretting the RAW in the way he has, now that someone has pointed out that it "reality aint that fantastic" maybe the OP's suggestion isn't that unreasonable?

I know what you were trying to do there you know matey, I have known you long enough for that.

To be fair I am sitting here thinking of ways it could really annoy situations having metamagic'd up to the nines a level 0 spell and I am struggling.

Admittedly I was arguing more for rules interpretations including the spirit of it (which may seem strange to you after my shadow run character ;) ) and agree it has gone all out of proportion.

I personally wouldnt give up a higher level spell slot anyway but it would make fantastic menders/fire fighters/small time thieves etc :)

Sorry if anyone took my posts as a bit intense, I see the funny side of it mixed in with the rules side ;)

Reserve feats are a bit like making a wizard into a warlock, and I cant say warlocks overpowered because I play one in your Freeport...damn

It does start to put you in the blaster-caster pigeonhole a bit, whereas the controller is always a fun mage choice and a favourite of any party.

Anyway, I was reading Complete Mage the other day after being posted in the direction of Reserve Feats. If you want some At Will damage spells, Reserve Feats are the way to go.

Have a 2nd Level Acid spell in a prepared slot? Then with the Acidic Splatter feat you can go around lobbing 2d6 acid damage attacks all day (as long as you don't cast that 2nd level Acid spell).

If a GM allows Reserve Feats i actually don't think they should have an issue with metamagic enhanced cantrips at will.

Dont go all power gamer you, it doesnt fit the persona ;) Some things added later in by the people at Wizards went a bit craaaazzzyy trying things out.

Besides as they say in star wars, they are a bit of a trap and in reality aint that fantastic.

Leave the cantrip and look at the feat. When a cantrip is modified by a meatmagic feat it occupies a higher spell slot thus locking the slot. Now when said spellcaster casts his spell he releases the energy from the metamagic feat thus expending the spell slot. The metamagic is gone not the cantrip. So what you would get would be one use of a modified cantrip and then a higher level slot locked with a cantrip spell.

Nice way of putting it.

LMAO. DM_aka_Dudemeister that example of the empowered acid splash cracked me up.

Seriously though i think most of us know the way it is supposed to be used and how it should read so lets not waste time argueing over something thats just common sense. Just enjoy the game lifes too short. Unless your Violet Staunton huh Dracon lol?

Shes so far beyond challenge ratings, the rules would collapse trying to convert from Chaosium rules ;)

Cthulhu himself was out last time she called round, but the curtains were twitching ;)

Dissinger wrote:

It does when you think the mention of 0-level spells refers to the slots, and not the spells that are put into them.

That description could easily mean that instead of the interpretation you guys seem to. Its more reasonable too.

But sorcerers and bards have no level 0 spell slots (or spells per day, as they might be called somewhere). How can cantrips be spell slots if sorcerers and bards don't have them?

It doesnt matter either way in that regard until you metamagic it where it comes into spell slot territory.

Deussu wrote:

PRD wrote:

Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels.

Interesting quote from the PRD and it leads me to this...

A wizard wants to prepare the following Cantrips: Acid Splash, Detect Magic, Read Magic and Light. However he only has three 0-level spell slots, so to prepare all four Cantrips he uses a 1-level spell slot (for Light).

No metamagic here, he has prepared 4 cantrips according to the Wizard Table. Does he get to cast Light (prepared in the 1-level slot) at will or only once?

While I think most people will agree that using the literal reading of the Cantrip write up to use Metamagic enhanced cantrips at will would be a bit too powerful (and probably not what was intended) I can see that the OP's reading of the RAW would be more likely to be accepted by a GM if the player wanted to use higher level slots to cast extra Cantrips at will.

So a clever rules lawyer would first propose a scenario like I did above and a GM may reasonably allow it, however by doing so the GM would set a precedent that the rule talks about spells and not spell slots, opening the door for the rule lawyer to then press the metamagic enhanced cantrip loop hole.

Actually mate thinking about I would not hesitate to allow a person preparing a level 0 without enhancement within his level 1 slot (effectively for the day sacrificing a level 1 slot whether its wizard or sorceror) because in fact he/she is actually losing out for the benefit of using a minor at will. (some good damaging level 1 spells for instance).

Acid Splash (1d3 Cold Damage) (Lvl 0)

Silent Acid Splash (Lvl 1)
Silent Still Acid Splash (Lvl 2)
Enlarged Silent Still Acid Splash (Lvl 3)
Empowered Enlarged Silent Still Acid Splash (Lvl 5)
Maximised Empowered Enlarged Silent Still Acid Splash (Lvl 8)

BEHOLD MY 4 DAMAGE AT 130 FEET DISTANCE AT WILL AND DESPAIR!

Or for more random beardiness

Quickened Maximised Empowered Enlarged Acid Splash (Lvl 9)

BEHOLD MY 4 DAMAGE AS A FREE ACTION AT 130 FEET DISTANCE AT WILL AND DESPAIR!

I HAVE BECOME DEATH! DESTROYER OF... erm... KOBOLDS!

I was going to ask how high you could get it too level wise lol.

1) I think Kobold protection league going to be involved there.

2) Admittedly you may be using time stop or something else, but there is bound to be a very annoying combination in there somewhere.

Also by the way I am perfectly calm that was just a step by step through it ;)

It seems you have already made up your mind how you would play it so please enjoy your games doing so.

My wavelength was simply if its in a level 1 slot, it expends that level 1 slot for the day. If its in a level 0 slot i.e not metamagic applied in anyway, it doesnt expend.

(n.b I toned down that other post as fair enough after reading back it did come across a little over-zealous.)

I believe Dracon and everyone else are describing the process as it is intended, however I can agree that to some extent the wording is potentially open to interpretation - this is what the OP is referring to.

PRD wrote:

Cantrips: Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Wizard under “Spells per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again. A wizard can prepare a cantrip from a prohibited school, but it uses up two of his available slots (see below).

A wizard who prepares a Cantrip using a metamagic feat has still prepared a Cantrip, just not in a Zero level slot. The PRD also states that "Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell...", so a metamagic enhanced cantrip is still a 0-level spell.

So if you read literally then yes, a metamagic enhanced cantrip could be cast At Will, however I have no doubt that this was not the intention, nor would it be allowed by many GMs.

Nice post to finish on mate and yes your right we are all explaining this as intended rather than how much we can read a line and use it to our advantage (and our group will tell you I am a bit of a powergamer myself), you can read whatever you like into almost any written work, rulebooks are no different. However whether its in organised play or home play I could never see this going through any DM.

The whole point is that RAW Lehmuska is absolutely correct, even though his interpretation is against the spirit of the rules. This is what's called a rules loophole. And yes, I am aware that its easy to fix with a house rule. However, for example in an organized play environment, we don't have that luxury. Until an official errata, the rules are that a cantrip that gets metamagic'ed is still a cantrip and follows the rules of cantrips.

Cantrip is just a name Navdi, we are talking level 0 spell slots. Ignore the name cantrip. it could be empowered to ninth level slot and still called a cantrip but you cant cast it unlimited.

"Cantrips: Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells,"

means

Im afraid anyone who tries that on would be looking for a new group every week.