Josh M Foster's page

Also, obligatory Does this affect PFS1?

While PFS1 doesn't use the lorespire guides, and we're not planning to update any language in old guides, feel free to use this as a guideline for our intent on how these sorts of issues should be handled in that campaign. Assuming that people are receptive to it, since the point of this post is getting a feel for community response.

Does this also apply to cleric of minor gods who died?

See my answer above. The rebuild will be given, but the cutoff date is the end of 2024

Does this rebuild stack with the Remaster rebuild granted last year?

It does.

Does this rebuild have an expiration date?

No expiration date.

I understand a Cleric of Gorum, for example, will not be granted any spells from a dead god after a rest.

What happens, though, with any spells you haven't expended?

If you used one after August 1st, would it still take effect? Or would it not work at all even though you still have that particular spell prepared?

I ask because let's say I still wanted to play a Cleric of Gorum even after Gorum's death. I'm thinking I'd have to be VERY judicious with spell-use because I know I'm never going to get them back after he dies.

Casting a Heal spell becomes a HUGE deal for my character and it had better be for a DAMNED GOOD REASON!!

We're just not equipped to track that sort of thing, or plan scenarios around having a caster who's resources are truly limited. It raises questions of Focus Points, and opens up too much table uncertainty.

It's a really cool idea, but the kind of idea that just isn't suited for Organized Play.

As there's a good chunk of players who don't actively follow the forums and paizo news, how would you recommend GMs to handle situations where someone sits down with a gorumite after august 1st, and they haven't yet heard about the change?

If such a character is played in a game before the Gorum tap is turned off on 8/1, but then the player shows up to GenCon and tries to play that character (so playing a Gorumite on or after 8/1) see if the option can be quickly rebuilt using the free rebuild you get. Otherwise, give them a pregen.

If, instead, someone's first Gorumite game is on 8/3, their GM there is unaware of the change, and then at, say, at DragonCon on 9/1 they try to play it, it'd be like brining a cleric of Asmodeus. Gorum won't be a legal option for clerics in PFS to choose (since he can't have clerics when he's dead). Such players should get a pregen and work out with local venture officers how to correct the character moving forward.

There's also a bunch of non-core 20 deities that are going to die. Will those be handled with the same rules (immediate rebuild when one of them is announced, like with God, Varix the Despoiler, and Sturovenen the Dragoneagle?) and do we need to wait for OP's confirmation for each death/deity, or can we just assume that any that dies results in a rebuild?

While such characters will get rebuilds just like Gorumites, not all of those deities will die when Gorum dies, and not all have been announced. As such, to give you all time after that announcement, those characters can be played until the end of 2024.

Any chance we could get this tag applied retroactively to the store pages of suitable past-adventures? It’d be real helpful!

That's definitely a goal of mine, and I believe we should be able to do it.

Will some of these kid-friendly adventures still include occasional, mild violence and horror, in the Saturday morning cartoon, shounen anime, Goosebumpsy sense? Asking because I'd hate to deprive the kids of ghosts, slime monsters, and guys punching each other.

They can still include battling, but foes will probably be less scary. Mild violence is probably a good way to put it. Ghosts and the like are tricky, since we want it to be approachable for anyone who can do the math, and those can truly be scary to younger players, if not handled particularly deftly. Rather than a list of what's in and what's out, though, the approach is more making sure the atmosphere and content of the adventure is suitable for as many of those younger players as possible.

Neat blog post but where in SoT is that picture from? I don't remember seeing it.

It's from the backmatter of the first adventure. Page 66, the intro to the Students section

My question is if there are going to be some with the Repeatable tag. With the AP's and other materials outside of the Scenarios having to be played outside of the organized play structure (and retro rewarded with lesser chronicles), there is a limited number of material to actually play our characters in PFS, carbon copies not withstanding.

I understand completely, given the nature of quests and the role they can play in brining in new players. I just answered a similar question from Hilary, but since you went so in depth with your question, I want to specifically say that I agree. Which is why we're going with repeatable quests.

QUESTION FOUR: Will these quests be repeatable, the way bounties were?

The plan is that all will be repeatable. I checked with the others in Org Play just to be sure, and we all agree that repeatable quests are the best quests.

QUESTION TWO: Josh, are you new? If so, welcome!

Alex already got the others out of the way, but I am indeed new! And I appreciate the warm welcome. I'll leave my full introduction for the one I wrote up in tomorrow's blog.

Page 292 actually says:

"It might be possible in some situations to meet the DC even on a 1. If your roll would equal or exceed the DC even on a 1, you don’t critically fail, but you still fail instead of succeeding. You can’t succeed when you roll a 1 no matter what your modifier is."

And that is really rather disheartening. Did your 20th level, legendarily-skilled rogue roll a natural 1 on that skill check against a low-level creature? The rogue fails.

Ugh. What a terrible way to have written the earlier text, then. And I agree, that's a terrible rule. I'll use it for the playtest, but if it's in the final release (assuming I play) I'm using the rule as it's written on 292 (where a 1 isn't an auto fail). Because it's actually sensible.

Apparently, according to page 292, characters always suffer at least a 5% chance of failure regardless of their roll modifier.

So 292 doesn't actually say that.

If you fail and roll a 1 on the d20 (also called a “natural 1”), or you fail and your result is equal to or less than the

DC minus 10, you critically fail instead of just failing.

Bold mine.

So you have to roll and 1 and fail (or fail by 10) to critically fail, according to 292. This contradicts page 8, where they do call it out as a critical fail, though pg 8 seems more like a rule of thumb then the specific rulings 292 is going into, but a contradiction is a contradiction.

Same with Critical success. On 292 you need the 20 and success, while on 8 you just need the 20.

I really hope they don't have it set up so that the legendary crafter ruins 5% of the bog standard longswords she makes. That would be dumb.

Edit

Oh dear lord the plot thickens. So pg 177 agrees with pg 8, a 20 on a strike is a critical hit. Who the heck wrote 292? And I don't see anything aside from pg 8 saying 1 is auto fail. The rulebook can't agree on the core mechanics of critical success and failures.

First off, to Vic and all of Paizo, thanks for your transparency in all of this. I know Gen Con and the release there must be insanity, so to have this hit now must be maddening.

The fact you're trying to have them refund shipping is good to hear. That in conjunction with the $15 store credit is pretty nice to be honest.

I won't say I'm not disappointed, but that's on Amazon, not on you guys.

Flowing Monk, for monk. Dear god flowing monk please. My personal concept of monk has always been the defensive, turn-your-opponents'-power-against-them style, and flowing monk was the first and only time I've really seen that embodied in a d20 game.

Lore Warden, for fighter. I love the flavor, but also it's nice to have a way to put tactics and knowledge into the mechanics of your character when you want to play a battlefield genius or commander-type fighter

Ninja, for rogue. It's listed as an alt class, but it's basically an archetype that just heavily modifies everything. It's got a lot of flavor baked in, and before unchained it was nice that there was a combat-heavy option to go alongside the skill-heavy one.

Saurian Shaman, for druid. It's a dinosaur druid. Everyone loves dinosaurs.

I don't know if it counts as an archetype, but I really really love the Void school for wizards. It's got great flavor and excellent utility built in.

If void school doesn't count, put me down for Hospitaler for paladin. It changed up the focus for the class and allowed for a healer who wasn't a primary spellcaster, which is pretty unique, I'd say.

I find that rerolls actually can increase tension or drama. A simple "will you keep that, or reroll" followed by a poker face actually adds tension. Does a player trust her save modifier? Does she trust her luck on the reroll?

I've never felt that it was abusive when a player survived because of one of these. I also tend to feel players should succeed after facing difficulties. A chance to roll twice on a single roll doesn't negate all challenge in any way. It doesn't make up for bad modifiers or bad tactics. It can stop something from failing do solely to a bad die roll. Why is that a bad thing?

Some have suggested adding NPC castings of spells to those that end at scenario completion. I vehemently disagree.

Raise dead is impossible under this, as is removing any affliction. Further, permanent NPC afflictions no longer matter. Unless we start carving a ridiculous tapestry of exceptions. You end up with a great deal of dead or diseased characters for which there is no remedy taking this as written.

Of course it won't be taken as written. The rules as they stand are either ignored (players are allowed cast raise, the results carry through, though this is technically illegal), or they end up completely inconsistent (I can't raise you, but John Q NPC certainly can). A lot went into 4.1 in unifying module play with scenario play and to stop carving exceptions. This was an excellent move in making org play more cohesive.

The casting expiration is one of the last bastions of rule inconsistency, and the only way to fix it is either a labyrinth of conditional exceptions, ignoring the rule when it's especially inconvenient (the current practice), or a complete removal of the rule along with a banned spell list (a list you already have). Go with simplicity here, please.

Implementing this is easy. Just allow spells to continue. Track permanent spells as you would items. The time between scenarios is indefinite, anything other than permanent or instantaneous wears off.

Add any spells you think are serious problem spells to the banned list like permanency or animate dead (as those are the ones oft cited to me, and such a list already exists with permanency, awaken, etc).

I see no merit to the fear that removing the spell expiration rule would somehow unbalance things. No rational argument has ever been posed to me that wouldn't be fixed by adding a spell to the same list as permanency currently occupies in org play. This is simple, consistent, and is a rule that can be followed without making death permanent.

To me, that just seems to defeat the entire purpose of playing the game.

So the entire purpose of the game is AoE spells that include your party?

I think that statement is a bit extreme. For the same reason I don't have to let someone stop my game to burn down every orphanage, I don't have to let this go through. But, at the same time, I can allow it. Every situation is different, and taking a table control away does not really strengthen roleplaying as much as it weakens the ability to reign in bullies.

I see where you're coming from, and most people on these boards know I'm no champion of tight GM controls, but at the same time this is not a home game. You see complete strangers with vastly different comfort levels, experience, and playstyles. You not only need to run the game, you need to keep it running by reducing the chance conflict will arise.

The ability to say "no" to an action does not ruin the game. It's no different than the ability to tell someone to get up and leave in the case of extreme disruptive play. It's no different than my ability to say yes to a situation the rules did not anticipate. It's part of being a GM - using your judgment.

The above gm calls all require judgment of the situation at hand. There is no magic formula, and Mark posting one won't improve things. Further, no one is saying all AoE spells are right out; there is no blanket ban.

We're GMs. We can look situation to situation and determine what's right. That's what makes this whole thing better than a simple video game.

Honestly, it's not a tool I would take away, and if you see a GM being overzealous in it's administration, do not play with him and perhaps mention it to the store liaison or your venture captain. Same as you would in a dozen or so other instances of bad GM behavior.

I see your points, and as I said the logic is there. It'd be a fine house rule for a GM, but any time an ability lists specific things that work, that list is considered exhaustive for society play unless Mark or whoever takes Hyrum's place says otherwise.

It's to try and avoid table variation.

Further, Abundant Step also directly references Dimension Door, and yet was included. As both of these abilities were in existence before the feat in question, and the feat mentions only one, the feat only works with that which it mentioned.

Mark Garringer wrote:

SHODAN wrote:

Venture Captains, please report to the testing facility. There will be cake and cookies.

Cookies? *wanders off in the direction of the testing facility*

Don't do it, they are brainwashing cookies!!!!

Brainwashing cookies?! NOOOOO!!! Those poor cookies!

I think my biggest problem I have with minimum CL consumable item purchasing is that staves are available. If my 10th level sorcerer has a Staff of Fire, I can toss out CL 10 fireballs pretty freely (5 per scenario, every scenario), but my wand would always be limited to CL 5.

At higher levels, low CL consumables are often wastes of actions given CRs. I honestly don't see the simplification that's being discussed. I waste more time each scenario making sure that any consumables follow a rule that many have previously considered non-obvious. Compared to the simple forumla for higher CL items, I don't feel this rule has gained me any time in things I've run - ever.

What it has done is created frustration for players in my game who had no access to force damage beyond a wand of magic missile, and I had to tell them their CL 9 wand that they had the fame for and paid for wasn't legit. It's counter-intuitive versus a reading of the core, and honestly, I feel it helps no one and balances nothing.

I cannot fathom a circumstance where someone who could afford a high-CL consumable would break an encounter with such an item. Quite the opposite, such rules are needed for the items to keep pace with the enemies found at higher tier games.

Minimum level consumables serve no balancing functions, and simply serve to make such items far, far less useful in high level play. It also tends to devalue investments in UMD. Balance, though, no. It doesn't do that.

I'm putting my vote in for Elephant Stomp. I think what they wanted to do originally was what Vicious Stomp does now... someone goes prone, you step on them, though they wanted the prone-going overrun-focused, I guess. What they ended up doing was making something no one should ever take ever.

Cockatrice Strike is also terrible, but maybe you're fortuned up and have a ton of rerolls from something else, so you're willing to be it all on one hit critting. It's a profoundly stupid thing to do, but I could see someone using the feat and something good happenning at some point.

This is not the case for Elephant Stomp. If you use it, nothing better can come from such use than from not using it - ever. Any in-game effect it has could be replicated by charging the foe you'd overrun with a normal charge instead. You've spent a feat so you can make a normal charge attack contingent on beating CMD...

Heck, even sharp sense grants something.

Taking elephant stomp is akin to saying "No thank you, level 3, I don't need another feat. I'm good. I'll just wait for level 5"

You provoke while casting, and you are hit before you finish, which is why a hit can interrupt casting and waste the spell. If you resolved the AoO after the spell went off, that's one thing, but all AoO's for spellcasting interrupt the action of casting, so the caster is most definitely still there. No question. And a mace to the face might just keep them there.

I'm sorry, people acting as the alignment police greatly, and I mean seriously, weaken the game.

Some are citing instances of killing citizens wantonly and sacrificing infants to Asmodeus. This is a blatant straw-man. How often does that actually happen? Why can't that be solved with "Don't be a Jerk," or "Don't be Disruptive?" These strike me as instances of players trying to get a rise out of other players, not really playing characters. As these cases can be solved through other rules, discussing them adds nothing.

More interesting are faction missions and prisoners. Good characters doing bad things. Neutral characters as well.

First problem. Good characters can perform evil acts and still remain good. Good means you do good most of the time. If you don't track the 'most of the time', only the slip ups, you strike me as a lazy GM. It would be akin to tracking damage and ignoring healing. Nowhere is it said a player must always behave in a certain manner.

I could see a good character, his friend just murdered by an assassin, ignore the assassin's plea of mercy and finish him. This is likely evil. Paladins would lose their powers, but it doesn't, in my mind conflict with a character's alignment. A personality is more than two letters, and forcing someone to react to everything like a robot leads to boring roleplay - bad for the game.

Just because an action doesn't fall in line with alignment does not make it forbidden. Where does it say that? Where does it say that every character must always, in all instances act in line with those two poorly-defined letters? Most importantly, where are evil acts banned? Not evil characters, evil actions. You clearly what to ban the latter through a thinly veiled claim that it's all for the former

Further, neutral characters will do evil things, just not most of the time. I've got a witch who will coup de grace a helpless character who has proven himself a threat. This might be evil. She doesn't care. The same witch went out of her way to put a ghost to rest because she didn't like the idea of the ghost, who did not deserve her end, suffering. That strikes me as good. If you marked off for the former, but ignored the latter, I'd complain about you to the campaign authority, have whatever you wrote on my sheet nullified, and go about my business playing my character the way I wrote her.

Pretty sure I'd be backed up, what with the good actions being ignored.

Neutral is an option, and yes, a few might use it to skirt into evil. I honestly don't care. As long as it's not disrupting the table, why say anything? What does this improve? Who does it help? Yes players can't play evil, but this strikes me was simply preempting the immature baby-killing type. Don't punish good roleplayers because of the threat of immature players down the line.

It's true that a GM needs to control the table, but this view goes beyond controlling a table. You are trying to control the personality of a PC. Perhaps you can ask why the character is undertaking an evil act, and they might have a good reason. If they don't suggest that they might be happier as [x]-Nuetral, as it might better fit they way they see their character. That is what the Core allows you to do. It gives you no other power to change, and you sure as heck don't get it anywhere in organized play. When you tell me my character's personality, my opinion of you as a GM immediately decreases, my idea that you know what you are talking about falls as well. A GM needs respect to control a table, and I see things like this as a quick way to lose it. Alignment is one of the easiest ways to start an argument, and your job as a GM is to keep things moving and keep people having fun so we can all tell a story together. How can you do that if you start an argument? And it will start one. Same as if you said coup de grace or Phantasmal Killer was a death effect.

Also, on the topic of control, anything immediate to the table is yours to control. Things that reach beyond, those are for the coordinators, not the people at the tables. You strictly follow the rules for death and wealth, using no house rules. So too with player alignment. Your views are not all GMs' views. Players need consistency. This alignment marking is extremely inconsistent. It'd be akin to the players never knowing the PA cost for a raise. Further, it'd also be akin for players never knowing their hit points.

Again, unless you track every single action Good/Evil, Law/Choas, this marking method is a miserable failure. It is bad for the game, pure and simple. There is another rule in the guide apart from no evil - Play play play. Let people play, and as long as they're not antagonistic or disruptive, perhaps there can be some nice interplay between those of high morals and those with fewer qualms. More interesting roleplay comes from these types of interactions, rather than those whose ideals all line up.

Some of the most fun roleplay I've had was my CN witch arguing with a LN Asmodean cleric. Our characters did not get along, but as players we had a blast debating the powers of order and entropy. You would deny one axis of that type of RP. While there would not be full out evil on the other side, some neutral characters might have fewer qualms about things that are sacrosanct to the good. RP gold.

Essentially, the game you are asking me to play is boring. It is one-dimensional. All good characters do good things all the time. Neutral characters do good things and occasionally brood, I guess, as that's the only other option left to them. Gods forbid anyone do anything you think is evil that might get them banned. Gods forbid a character suggest killing the bad guy, we're all bright shiney heroes. If I wanted to play a G-rated game, I'd go find one. Mind you I don't always play morally gray characters, I've got a few LG in the mix, even, but no one should take the ones who skirt darkness from me or anyone else.

Again, unless you can point to a uniform measure of actions, and the magnitude each has on alignment, and unless you track each action on that measure, you are doing things wrong.

Evil actions ARE NOT BANNED. You can worship an evil god. You can create undead. You can kill the prisoner. You should not play a character who goes over the line for this, and you cannot qualify for assassin ever, but that's it. There is no mechanism for anyone to change someone's alignment. Home GMs are given that prerogative, but they're also given the prerogative to hand out new magic items. If you can add alignment markers to a sheet, I can add new magic items to their sheets. The logic is the same, the core says the GM has that prerogative.

This is organized play, and you don't get full GM powers. You may want them, but you don't have them. You can remove someone from your table for being disruptive. You can tell someone who wrote LE on their sheet that they can't play it and need to change (same as if they wrote Scribe Scroll). You cannot decide that you invent a one-way scale movement on which only a costly spell can fix. This is not what a PFS GM does. I'm actually angry right now, so I apologize for the tone, but you weaken the game, and I could see you ruining fun tables I've had in the past. I truly hope you haven't made things less fun for those for whom you've GMed.

Also make occasional use of Neutral or even Good antagonists (fey can work wonders.) Use evil innocents as well. Have evil characters tell the truth. If the Paladin goes Miko on an innocent, the result is the same as

This is not to trick the paladin. Warn her (or him) that everyday people can be evil, and that being evil does not mean that someone has done anything wrong.

Actions have consequences, and Paladins should not choose to kill first ask questions later. Part of the power of the class is balanced by the restrictions of the code, so instead of worrying about evil detection, which doesn't tell the Paladin anything but that the target is a smite candidate and pretty self-interested, worry about the behavior that stems from it.

Let them detect evil. Even if spellcraft can notice it (and it's not clear it can), that's not exactly a common skill. Let them detect evil. Punish dumb actions.

Templates like this are for GM to adjust encounters on the fly. It's the anti-advanced, which is also something I'd never let a player take (as well as giant.)

This is a tool for GMs, not an option for players.

Mr. Whedon,

Why Wash? Was it because you hate me?

Some of these suggestions are decent, a few quite good, if your characters have a tendency to abuse metagame knowledge

I dislike the secret ability damage, though. I wouldn't any more deny telling them STR or other ability damage or level drain than I would hp damage. Yeah, the character might not know exactly how much the venom took out of them, but no less than they know the precise amount the injecting bite hurt in terms of hp.

Some perception and sense motive make sense to roll behind the screen, though, sure...

...there's just one problem I have with your premise. You assume player misbehavior is a given. You assume your players will abuse metagame knowledge. Some players are good enough not to. I have the fortune to GM for a group who can face a monster they've seen dozens of times over their gaming careers, but if their current characters have not they play as if they have not. If they cannot identify what a creature is they use suboptimal tactics, if that's what their character would do, even if the player has read the monster's entry.

Your players are not necessarily children for whom the truth and numbers must be hidden, and sometimes to do so disrespects them greatly, especially taking it to this extreme.

There are games where you want that sense of dread you describe. Call of Cthulhu? Yeah, players should have no clue just what's happening to them, and death is a constant threat. 3.x is not the system its ADnD grandfather was, though. It's not necessarily a horror game, and you don't always want scared and confused players.

And that's I think my problem: you're confusing fear and uncertainty on the part of the player with that of the character. It's fair to want the latter in many instances, but it does not necessarily require the former.

Sometimes you might want that. You may wish to heighten tension with a hidden perception check so they're not sure what lies in the darkness as both players and characters. It is not necessary though.

The best way to avoid metagaming is to have good players. Assuming your players lack the skill to play their characters properly from the outset just sort of rubs me the wrong way.

Finally. I now have the means to create the unicorn cohort that my club-wielding barbarian character has always been lacking.

You sir, get +1 for your reference sir.

Long live Uni!

As I recall, Silent Tide was not too long a scenario, and a pretty good introduction to Pathfinder. Master of the Fallen Fortress is designed to be an intro, but it runs long and has some risky TPK bits - might want to steer clear of it, given your criteria. Many Favors of Grandmaster Torch can be run very, very quickly. I've done it in two hours.

If you decide you've got much more time than you anticipated, I've heard very good things about Godsmouth Heresy, but I've not played it myself.

I know there's a lot of PFS here, but those are short and practically designed for convention play.

Besides, PFS is awesome =P

Life for a familiar is really rough in Golorian. You can work 24/7, give your master Alertness, empathically warn him of danger, deliver his touch spells, and serve faithfully throughtout countless danger. You risk life and limb, then one day he sends you packing to pick up some imp half your age.

It's unfair, but it happens everyday... stupid jerk wizards have no consideration for the feelings of others. They don't care who gets hurt.

Clearly familiars need to unionize. It's the only way to stop this abuse!

My other problem with auto fail on skill checks is the flat probability of a d20. Every number has the same chance of coming up on a roll. Always 5% to fail. If it were more a bell curve I would find a critical failure more stomachable. But in d20, no matter how awesome I become at climbing, no matter how many demon lords I and my companions have slain, I have the same chance to fall off the DC 5 rope as when I was 1st level and had +4 to climb.

There are systems where more skills give you more dice, and I'm more comfortable when these systems have an auto-fail mechanic, as the freak accident situations are far less likely, and they don't lie on a flat 5% chance - increasing your skill actually decreases the threat of the auto-fail option.

Don't get me wrong, I like d20 - love it even, and pathfinder is by far the best ruleset I've ever played under in any d20 game (and I've played more d20 games than just 3.0 and 3.5), but there are things it can do well and things it cannot. An auto-fail on skills is one of those things it cannot simulate well.

My understanding is, that climbing an 80ft rope puts them into immediate danger.

Not if their bonus is high enough =P

Climbing a rope is dangerous, but you can take your time and do it right if you're not in danger because of it being on fire, surrounded by archers, and also you've angered a storm cleric.

Further, mechanics-wise, the length of the rope has no bearing on its DC, just on the time it takes. climbing 10ft is just as hard for someone as climbing 80, the latter just takes 8 times longer.

I'm getting the feeling (I might be wrong) that some posters here want PCs to fail a simple action such as climbing a rope. Don't want your PCs to fail on something like that. You should want them to succeed and be awesome. I mean, given them challenges, but let them show their levels from time to time. They'll love you. The 5% you screw up no matter how awesome you are at this thing helps no one.

It doesn't help you. If you want something hard, make it hard. Nat 1 failure just increases the chance you accidentally kill someone with falling damage on a thing that you expected to pose no real challenge, throwing kinks in design. It also leads to angry Players, and it really decreases the awesome feel of high level play.

It's fail all around. Don't do it. You can. You're the GM, but it adds nothing.

It doesn't add an element of risk. Risk is something in game that can be mitigated by an intelligent party. The mitigation option here is don't do anything ever, because everything can fail, and will eventually. You want an element of risk, just provide a suitable challenge.

It also takes away your ability to place the temple or whatever in an epic-feeling location accessible only by a 1000 ft climb. They won't fail the climb, and it won't (and shouldn't) be rolled out, but it feels better for an upper-level character than "you see ruins in the forest. Perhaps an old temple, now fallen into darkness."

You also make spellcasters even better. The fighter climbs, the caster flies. One might fall to his death any round, and if the rope is long enough, his chances raise to near certainty. The caster just goes up because he thinks it. Or teleports. Or dimension doors. The caster has no risk.

Why would you punish someone for not playing a caster? Were you attacked by monks? Don't let one rogue monk attack color your view of all the non-magics.

Besides, monks have their own dimension door thing anyway, so you're really just taking your anger out on the fighter. The fighter takes enough abuse, thank you very much.

But honestly, in doing this, you don't really constrain your players (as you have ways of making a climb that takes checks) as much as you constrain yourself. You don't want that.

It wouldn't stop telepathic bond, because the spell itself isn't granting information about the target. It is simply facilitating a transfer of information.

You can still talk to someone and speak to them about what happened and get info that way. Telepathic Bond's effect is to modify how that communication occurs, it's not divining information about someone.

To put this in modern terms: Mind Blank is stopping someone from using 411 to get info on him, but doesn't prevent using the phone to call someone who already knows info.

Absolutely right. Any witnesses still know what they saw. The problem with the situation in the original thread was that the mind blanked character took precautions to be away from everyone and everything.

Still, people could notice the increase in wealth or the like from a sudden wish influx. Mind Blank isn't super invisibility, and if the caster slips up and gets noticed, info can be found.

Spells don't stop good old fashioned legwork... well except the ones that kill the detective. Those might stop good old fashioned legwork,

Having an effect on the weapon would in real life be useless without something to cause an area effect such as smoke or gasoline. In the bee movies, or B-movies if you prefer, if you didn't have a bee suit or a flame thrower, you were screwed.

So I think it is a very good simulation that a flaming sword or the like does nothing to a swarm. It wouldn't do anything to a swarm but get you killed if you lit a stick on fire or sword and tried to swing it at them. Now bring a flame thrower and you might have a chance.

The only way such a weapon would have any effect is if the swarm hadn't yet begun to swarm attack, was all over a tree, and sat still while you slowly burned the various parts that make it up to death. Swinging a flaming weapon of any kind in the middle of a swarming swarm is a sure way to die. You won't do any better than swinging a non-flaming stick. The bees and creatures making up a swarm will disperse over you attacking you from all sides and dodge and avoid that flaming stick as easily as any other weapon.

We're talking about a magic fire sword... and how's this - an actual magic fire sword: the spell flame blade. This spell, without question, can damage a swarm RAW. It is nothing but fire damage. It is shaped like a sword. For purposes of your B Movie example, it would not work either, yet clearly does given the rules.

Swarms are not immune to anything that isn't an area, they are immune to affects that target one creature. Yes... your point on attacks... it's wrong.

Target in the RAW means something different.

Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

(Bold mine)

I can swing my flaming weapon at a creature with total concealment I cannot see. It is not a targeted effect, even though it arguably has a target, anymore than a fireball is. Magic Missile, on the other hand, will not work unless I see the thing at which I shoot. I cannot use it to attack the darkness. Your flaming blade swings and remains on fire whether or not you declare a target or have any hope of hitting anything . This is why it is not a targeted effect. Targeting effects are not defined by having a target, but only by failing to function when they do not have one. My fireball goes off, whether or not there is anyone in the square where I suspect the invisible stalker to be. So too can my sword swing there.

You don't want to allow this in your home game, that's fine, but don't say the rules don't allow for it, they clearly do.