I don't know if this issue has been solved, but it appears that Detect Magic has no prohibition against identifying artifacts, but identify (and it's 3rd level cousin) do. So, I interpret this to mean that you can try to identify artifacts using conventional detect magic and the spellcraft skill, but it's just very hard due to the CL (and the DC could be further boosted due to circumstance/background). Is this a correct interpretation?
It has negative implications...
I love this concept - I'd definitely make giant's potions giant-size, but no more efficacious. They could also have ingredients in them that giants would consider just particles, but for regular size people would be a mouthful.
It's good for adding flavor (no pun intended) off the core rule of 1 potion = 1 effect on drinker.
Globe of invulnerability - contradiction between being a emanation centered on you and being immobile
Do you think they can rule that without backtracking on other rulings minimizing bardic performance requirements?
For example can you whisper jokes to your adjacent companions (knock-knock jokes, of course) quietly to avoid alerting nearby monsters? Is the same amount of noise made to maintain the ability? If people spread out, can you raise your volume accordingly? Can you do this in a moderate fashion (to avoid alerting bad guys further away)?
I think my overall point has been made in the back and forth.
Even Wraith won't let a paladin use RAW to lay on hands without use of a hand. Slavishly following RAW can be as complicating as using RAE/names (some won't agree to 'as complicating' but I think we can all see examples where it is somtimes).
Similarly, I won't let fire elementals hide in normal darkness, and when my player wants to hide them at the bottom of a vat of oil to surprise people (and only ignite it when they use their burn ability), I'm going to say no. Also, when a bard in my campaign wants to 'stealth perform' using quiet jokes (you know, whispering the banana knock-knock joke over and over) to avoid alerting monsters in the next room, they'll have to use dance, and people will lose their bonus if they lose sight of them. Despite their request being perfectly in line with RAW.
Rules text dictates the minimum an ability does (which is what the Devs are ruling on), but the implementation/manifestation of the ability is up to the GM, and I think should absolutely be guided by fluff/flavor text/names. I just hope that people posting and helping other players will remember this, and encourage others to do so.
I believe it's no longer a RPG when this last filter is not applied by the GM.
This is where the problem begins, and it's just as troublesome for me as a GM for people to say 'my water elemental doesn't get things wet when I activate Drench, because it doesn't say it does'. I see it as counterproductive, and creating a whole generation of Roll-players, and not Role-players.
I think this is wrong - picture Eli the Elemental Hunter "This campfire was put out by a water elemental Drenching. No one in their right mind carries this quantity of water around, or even creates it, to be able to put out a campfire. We're getting close." The flavor text was written so that the effects dictated in the mechanics are implemented in a certain way. Your variant water elemental may have 'extinguish' (or power 1a, given the apparent over-reliance on 'rule-text only'), but that's not a run of the mill water elemental. It also gives you zero in the way of narrative power to map out consequences, and unintended consequences.
This just opens another can of worms - now a bard can do their 'whisper performance' if they only want to effect their adjacent comrades (which can get louder later). They now have an ability that's better than a spell (a partial Silent Spell), since spells need to be in a normal spoken voice. Maybe they can start with a visual performance (since it's quiet and allows you to sneak up on the bad guy) and switch to an audible one when people start to spread out during battle (it doesn't say you can't switch, only that you choose a mode when starting).And I thought the conclusion is that it is using the perform skill (as it says so), but not requiring a check?
You mean when your paladin wants to lay on hands to the person hanging from their feet (when they can't reach them with a hand, but their hand is free), you'll deny their clear implementation of RAW?This is perhaps a hyperbolic example, but the point is RAW if held to strictly can be as troublesome as using flavor descriptions/names. They both have their place, but the emphasis being placed is treating PF as 4E (or Champions - 'you didn't pay for that effect, so it doesn't happen'), not a game of narration.
I think this is perfect, but it's breaking the rules interpretations I've seen again and again on the forums, which discourage this type of thinking.
I think this is a great use of an elemental - if you can convince them to give up some of their substance (perhaps taking damage in the process), it's a wonderful role-playing opportunity (how are you speaking to them?). As a GM, I'm all for using higher level spells to simulate those of lower level...
This is quite true. But both ways have their issues.
I don't see that much. I do see reference to 'you can house rule it' which comes across again and again as derisive.
My issue is a general one. Flavor text (or name) matters! If you ignore it, and just say 'it doesn't say it does that' you're playing the wrong game system. If it's called Drench it should drench things to put out fires. If it's Bardic performance, it should require performance (yes, this again) of some sort. If it's Lay on Hands, it doesn't say it requires you to touch with a hand, only that you have a hand free and touch someone, I'm not going to let the paladin reach out and touch a shackled prisoner with his foot to use the ability (when his hands won't reach despite being 'free', say through bars). They have names for a reason instead of being called 'paladin ability level 2a'.
If you're fighting when it's very cold out and someone hits you with a burning weapon, and your elemental buddy uses drench to put out that fire, you're going to be wet in my campaign, with appropriate risk of hypothermia (and environmental consequences).
I'd just like to see all the common posters here, who readers take as authorities (like Wraith), giving better answers than 'the ability doesn't say that so it doesn't do that', but more likely 'although not listed in the ability, it should probably by extension of the name have that effect.' Teach people how to RPG, not MMORPG, even in the rules forum, I recommend.
This is the problem I'm having perpetually with the forum people or PFS people in general. You have an ability whose name implies getting things wet, and has a mechanism that would involve getting things wet, but since 'it doesn't say it does', it doesn't happen. This attitude is more appropriate for a MMORPG or playing 4E than playing a RPG like PF. As a GM, I'm not going to let you put out a campfire using Drench without it looking like you dumped a huge bucket of water on it (and generating mud).
"No wait," says the PFS player, "this book states it puts out fires, not that it makes things wet."
My issue is that if the designers didn't want it to be putting fires out by dropping water all over it, it would be named 'extinguish'. That's applying a modicum of common sense by reading the description of the ability, and in direct conflict with the 'it doesn't say it does' mentality. I'm concerned it's influencing a whole generation of gamers negatively.
Just to clarify, you're saying the drench special ability doesn't make anything wet because it doesn't say it does?
Did you mean 1d8+5?
I think this thread has identified a lot of edge cases it would be good to get clarification on:
1. AoE attacks with instantaneous duration (e.g. fireball)
How about a system that caps the power of magic items usable by classes, with the more magical classes getting the worst progression, and more mundane ones a better progression. Then mundane classes, who need more magical assistance, get to have items 2x as powerful as magical classes over 20 levels?
Lefty X wrote:
Sorry, the suggestion that everyone get iteratives at max BAB, which was my understanding of Lefty X's clarified proposal.
Sorry, posts are moving too fast.
I think the only way to fix this is to only give specific class's levels access to protected feats/abilities.
For instance: a rogue feat that only they can take (after say 5 levels) that allows you to add their class level to a skill once per round. A fighter feat that allows them to add their class level to their CMB once per round.
Rogues need to break the skill DC system so it's remodulated for them, if they're going to be a skillmaster. Similarly for fighters and CMB/CMD. I might also give them options to add their class level to any one save per round? Just ideas...
All worth considering. I was just telling you where I draw the line on common sense in this circumstance, as backed up by rules text. Some GMs can ask 'are you doing a visual or auditory bardic performance' (as required by the rules), but it seems dumb not to just ask 'which perform skill are you using?' (which also is backed up by the rules) And if they say comedy, the GM can say, "Oh sorry, you realize your allies the Borg don't have a sense of humor, so comedy won't work on them to inspire. Did you want to use something else?" Or just surprise them the first time, if you dropped enough hints.
And all spellcasting classes in PF need nerfing.
You can perform a sunder with spellstrike?
AD+D addressed this disparity by making arcane casters useless and unlikely to survive at low levels, and limiting the power of divine spells. 3E decreased this disparity, and PF virtually has done away with it. The DC system mitigated the disparity, somewhat, but because historically world-shattering spells were kept, it continued. This is on top of the sheer number of castings and sheer number of options high level casters get.
Even if you reduced a caster's number of spells cast per day to 1/ spell level, most of the problem would remain. I think that's quite telling.
One way I balance such things is that when people realize you can level their town in 6 seconds, they start treating you like a feral dog that they're afraid of. Even being able to swing a sword really well doesn't engender fear like the 'nuclear option' does. Unless you're devoting a lot of effort to controlling this, your casters become less and less useful socially.
I've already conceded that above, if you'd paid attention. It uses a skill that you don't need to be good at. The point I was trying to make is that not any perform skill will work the same. Just as I won't let a naked rogue pick a jail cell lock with his tongue no matter how good they are at disable device, I apply common sense to the situation.
That's the advantage of playing a RPG over a MMORPG, there's someone to apply such layers of common sense. Yes, the RAW left it open to allow munchkin GMs to ignore the whole issue, but with room for common sense to be applied situationally.
This would be correct if 1) the allies didn't need to perceive the bard and 2) it was disconnected from a skill.
Look, folks, since perform can be used untrained, my interpretation effectively poses no barriers - just use a perform skill (even if you have no ranks in it) that makes sense to inspire your audience (GM interpretation on that one). Now, If I'm your GM, I'm going to make a big deal about how badly you're performing if you choose to use a skill with no ranks in it. In fact, this interpretation gives you More options, since you can decide if you want to exclude certain 'allies' (put in quotes since you may like some more than others) from your bardic music.
In my campaign, I may pose a few additional restrictions (i.e. making bad music isn't inspiring), but those are house rules.
It is incumbent on a GM to ask a bard what perform skill he/she is using for performance each time. If only to discern visual/auditory, but I think more common sense should be applied, and there are enough rules to support injecting GM interpretation at this point. Treating it like a spell or magic button is not consistent with the RAW, when consider them all.
I tend to agree - comedy, not so much.
Bardic performance uses a perform skill (despite the lack of roll or ranks needed) that you must see or hear. You can choose one that works on bunnies, or one that doesn't. Bard's choice. You, as a GM, can choose to ignore that it uses this skill if you choose, and make this ability mysteriously independent of a 'bardic performance'. I call that pissing away flavor to allow players to min/max further.
'I push this button as a standard action (for now) and all my allies are inspired if they can see or hear me push this button - it's mind affecting, you know.'