Nosferatu's page

IMO, each pure damage spell word beyond 3rd should offer something more than fireball. I've said above, I'm against adding conditions. So I'm looking at increasing damage at a faster rate than vancian.

Mind you, this only applies to instantaneous damage, not to duration damage.

I think each classical element should get something fairly unique. eg:

Level 5. d8/CL (lets assume)
Fire boost: Spell deals splash damage from all targets of the spell, equal to spell's minimum roll. +1 spell level

Ice boost: creates difficult terrain in all squares in which it covers, or in which a target of the spell occupies. DT lasts 1 round/CL

Acid boost: your acid mimics certain oozes; GC (does not harm metal and stone, requires a perception check (DC = spell DC) to notice effect), GO (does not harm stone, requires a perception check to notice effect).
At level 7, I can imagine other properties of stronger ooze's acids, as options. +1 spell level.

Lightning boost: Choose one, visible target in range, determine line of sight of the spell from you, but line of effect from the target.

I'm leaving Force and Sonic out for now, since those damage types are their own reward.

I didn't think about ball as a target word. That could be neat; I'd like to use magic and just make random floating spheres I can control, sure why not!?

As for domes...

... 10' radius burst, and increases to 15' radius at CL14, and if epic levels are in, radius 20' at CL 25.

I came up with these figures using Hemisphere's surface area and how much Barrier supports. At CL5~6 you'll get around a 10' radius, which is almost on par for how much Barrier's unboosted area earns in 3D.

On with new word suggestions! How about one for an Aura-effect, centered on you, but affects everyone around you - boosted to specify enemies or allies?

I know you're back to the 5 groups of elemental words, but just to chime in, that rule is what keeps "Servitor Servitor Servitor" spells from not happening.
I don't want to see WoP rules being re-written, as much as clarified for their intent, in the same way I agree with some of the criticisms of your Undeath words; if Undeath was instead, expanded to being used in conjunction with certain other effect words for specific creations, I would have thought that more in the spirit for WoP than to create a higher level Undeath word. For example, while Servitor provides much versatility with it's summon list, combining it with Boost Disappear turns it into an effective phantasmal stalker; less refined than the original, but satisfies the same role.
As for an example on rules clarifying, I don't want spells that just deal energy damage, taken in the form of a ray, to offer reflex saves (because that sort of thing makes me feel it defeats the purpose). Might as well, make the same effect a Burst, if that's the case, right? Then again, if my wordspell deals damage, AND causes a status effect, AND tests reflex, the ray versions should only test the save for the effect. That's something I believe needs to be fixed, but well within the existing rules structure.

To touch on grouping again, I think it's important to maintain for sense and also, for mechanics, but then, spells like Wrack and Cramp make sense to be in Pain group, but now you can't combine them, together. A problem that can quickly arise, when players really wish they could do that and ask why not, but then, if you were to introduce other Words of Power status effects and combine them at will, I think that Grouping would be an important role and mechanic, in adjudicating what's balanced with strong theme.
Spells that inflict a condition should inherently mimic Wrack or Paralyze Humanoid in how they're written, and this is important, because we're also to mind the duration rule, which I know some people gripe about, but I think, has good purpose; it keeps the power level of some spell combinations in check (and should be a moot argument with your new even-level energy words, anyway), and also because it's the mentality of building spells up with the ease of throwing them together, as being mutually more powerful for doing so, but not overpowering, especially when delivering the various effects in combination, as that can easily be an issue of balance.

So, I hope some of these make their way to your notes, Dale. I'm seriously looking forward to when WoP can be used just as simply as regular spellcasting. :P

Serisan wrote:

Crossblooded/Wildblooded is invalid

Has there ever been an actual ruling on this? I've seen it argued both ways.

A crossblooded sorcerer selects two different bloodlines. The sorcerer may gain access to the skills, feats, and some of the powers of both bloodlines she is descended from, but at the cost of reduced mental clarity and choice (see Drawbacks).

When creating a wildblooded sorcerer, select an existing bloodline, then select one of the following mutated bloodlines associated with that bloodline.

Going from this, it appears plain that when you pick a wildblooded line such as Primal, you are also (and primarily) considered an Elemental Bloodline Sorcerer, which has then mutated into a sub-bloodline. To Crossbleed (I anglicized) the Elemental bloodline, or any mutation of it with any other wildblood derivations of the Elemental bloodline wouldn't work, since the heritage is Elemental/Elemental, but I don't see why you can't be a Primal/Abyssal crossblood, since as far as Crossblooded rules go, you're Elemental/Abyssal, and then you may choose to be of a mutated Elemental and/or Abyssal bloodline, after that.

The other factor is that Wildblood and Crossblood are both sorcerer archtypes. According to Archtype rules, you can combine them, as long they don't both replace similar things, since that messes with requirements ("Characters may take more than one archetype as long as they meet the requirements.", PRD), and technically speaking, they do. If anything, Wildblood requires the base bloodline to switch out bloodline arcana and certain bloodline powers, but Crossblood only requires that there are bloodline arcanas and powers, such that you can pick from the two you mixed, so that satisfies the conditions, legitimately, IMO.

@KBrewer,
You know, I could almost swear I read an example with Immunity to one element and Resist 10 to another, but I can't find it anywhere, and with what's written under Resist and Immunities, that interpretation makes sense. Oh well, slight change of plans, now, but still pretty much in-line with my idea.

There's a lot of tips to make even the rolling segments go faster. For example:

1. Generally speaking, always encourage your players to plan ahead for their turn, each new round. After they take their turn, they should start planning for the next one, with contingencies depending on how things go between now and then.

2. Inline with the previous idea, ask players to roll all the dice (attack and damage) together. If there are miss chances using d%s, then ask the player to roll it, instead of you, as that really makes no difference, but now, they can quickly look at the percentile (above what you need to hit?, If yes), the attack (is it high enough for you to hit? If yes), then tally the damage.

Speeding combat up is important, because it encourages players to feel like it's happening at a fast pace. If combat drags on, then all the player will want to do, is whack until it's dead. Faster paced combat can get a little bit more adrenaline back into the play.

3. Its good that you focus on the monster's tactics, which helps you to understand when things are, or aren't going swell for your NPCs. Add a touch of flavour to the combat by letting your NPCs taunt your players for their failures, and shout curses at their successes. Enemies who provoke attacks of opportunity in moments of desperation are very likely to howl in anger, when that attack connects, or worse, hinders their goal.

4. I don't need to talk much more about description than everyone else has said, but it helps to focus on what you feel is happening, and communicate that to the players. If the players are suspicious of what ambush you're laying in wait for them, play up their fears by making them feel like they're right up on it (and then surprise them, when they think they're in the clear). Not everyone is good at expressing the ambience with poetic prose, but anyone can explain what the situation feels like.

5. Give your memorable foes something to actually be memorable about. A lasting impression often comes from a quirk or tell-tale give that acts not only as a calling card, but a warning. In Peter Pan, the ticking of a clock reminds Hook of his nemesis, the crocodile who took his hand (and his pocket watch), so incorporate such a feeling into your recurring villains.

6. Sometimes, let the players do the work. Some of the best combat stories involve curious situations, in which a player thought outside the box, and came up with another solution. These are often radical, and go outside the circle of just rolling dice. Encourage these ideas, and allow slight bending of the rules, if there's no significant harm in doing so. As a partial tip, if one player thinks up a clever idea, and everyone is interested in how it turns out, ask the other players how they'd like to contribute. This way, everyone feels like they're doing their part.

ALL RIGHT, I hope that helps! Good GMing to you!

I'm always looking for good WoP threads, so maybe i should thank Third Mind for the necro.

That said, in the most sincere joy that text can muster, thank you, OP, for presenting WoP in a very simple, easy-to-understand manner. Your commandments are the best summary of how WoP differs from regular casting.

However, here's something I noticed; in your guide, you draw up a blasting spellword and give it this justification:

BLASTING: Lightning Blast + Fire Blast. No, you don't get 2d6/level damage - the rules say that if you combine effect words that deal damage, you only get your level's worth of dice. Still, that means the damage cap for this spell is 20d6. Also, while you only have your level worth of damage dice, you get to pick which dice you want. So if you’re a level 13 sorcerer up against fire immune foes, you can take all 10 of the lightning dice and only add in 3 fire dice.

You got that from here, likely:

Multiple Effect Words and Damage: If more than one effect word causes the wordspell to deal damage, the total number of dice of damage the wordspell can deal can be no greater than the wordspell's caster level. The caster can decide which dice belong to which effect word, in any combination, so long as the total number does not exceed his wordcaster level and the number of dice allocated to a specific effect word does not exceed its maximum.

But there's also this:

A wordspell can have more than one effect word, even ones from different schools of magic. In this case, the spell counts as both schools of magic.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean your spell is Evocation [electricity, fire]? I can't find it, right now, but I remember reading that spells with multiple energy types are not actually divided in damage, and that for energy resistance to apply, the target has to have resist to all of the types in the spell (such that if I had fire immunity and electric resistance 10, I'll still take the damage, but apply the resist 10, as it's the lowest).

Does anyone recall this rule, and where I might find it?

I don't that has to be relinquished at all.

Let me first say that I'm not a fan of 4e-ideology, where every class is the same class, reskinned to particular effects, this way or that, so in no way do I idealize that for PF.
What I'd like, though, is that a level 10 caster can't ho-hum his way through any combat encounter of his level, because he can eat through HP that most martial classes can't compare to, even with magic weapons, and then use magic to buff skills and abilities in non-combat situations. I'm okay with situational disparity, especially if the point of WoP casters is to be versatile, while a wizard regrets his choices in preparation, or a rogue envies your stealth with invisibility (before he can acquire his own ring), but the situation shouldn't be that given a choice, people feel that it's pointless to play martial classes.

Even looking at the CR 20 challenge rating creatures, they, including a considerable portion of the rest of the game, would die to having to make 10 saves in a row against Hold Monster, and if it's still alive, the round after, you finish it off with an Inflict Mass Damage spell. As a WoP, you could coup de grace with rays, as long as you're adjacent, for even worse (more) damage. Even if (especially if) I was that caster, I'd leave that game, right there.

Rarity of casters still doesn't solve the problem if anyone in the party was a spell caster, and to add to that, a single enemy spellcaster, of the same CL as any member of the party, would more than likely be able to kill one or two members, even a full party wipe, if he had good tactics. The higher in level you get, the greater the disparity becomes. Even leaving WoP out, that's a terrible way to interpret those rules.

@DarkLightHitomi
Thanks for pointing it out. I've decided to quote a bunch of spells, MM, SR, and some Mass spells' for their descriptions and targeting regarding this matter. You're still correct, technically speaking, but I think the convincing on how to treat the spell lies in the degree of explicit language used in MM and SR, which is not present in other 'Mass' Spells as well as the Boost entry for target-word 'Selected'. It's a lot of cp, so I used a spoiler tag.

Also, just wanted to say, I was actually looking forward to Words of Power that dealt with Undead, so it was actually pertinent to my interests, as well as support to see more of what comes out of it.

Double Trouble.

@Tinalles, I see where you're coming from, since 'Scorching Ray' is a thing, but it isn't clear to me, where in it's description 'Selected' allows you to double-target any single target, when boosted. Boosting 'Selected' is essentially the same as a "Mass" target cast, similar to casting Cure Light, and then, Cure Light, Mass.

Instead of one target, the wordspell affects up to one target per caster level, no two of which can be more than 30 feet apart.

Keywords: "up to".

In this case, Selected spells are similar to a 'Mass' standard spell, except (Edit: no exception, mass spells also have this limit) that there is a restriction on the number of targets, such that if a circle of 15' radius were drawn, and in it, there were X targets, all legitimate for the spell, you may pick Y of them, where Y is your CL. Imagine it as if you were observing a battle through an electronic HUD, and painting each member as "friendly" or "foe", it wouldn't make sense to say "oh, I have room for up to 50 enemies, but there's only 25, so I'm going to save each enemy as 'foe', twice."

Consider that 'Boost Selected Wrack' is a spell that functions pretty much like Slow, except instead of making them slower, you make them sicker.

Now, for the opposite perspective, imagine if there were only one target, and you boosted Selected, when you were, say a CL 10 caster. Your interpretation would give you 10 instances of the spell, and under the "why waste my targets" mantra, you'd could have cast a level 4 spell that dealt 50d4 to a single target.

Ouch.
A little too much, I think.

@Dale, take my money. Would you like my feedback in this thread or via private messages?

I'm pretty much giving up on this thread.

@Eldong, @Aelryinth, plenty of people have suggested ways to mitigate the "profit" factor from fabricate uses from straight up house rules, to rewording the spell to be more explicit in the RAW. Why have you turned a blind eye to this?

If people are still going to complain about fabricate while simultaneously justifying the existing trade system, somehow, finding one excuse or another is a leap in RAI than bothering to understand the purpose of the spell.

Look here.

Selling Treasure

In general, a character can sell something for half its listed price, including weapons, armor, gear, and magic items. This also includes character-created items.

NOTHING here talks about your fabled middle-men. I can sell my equipment to an NPC adventurer, and he'll pay 50%, unless I have a trait, feat or ability that says otherwise, so quit making up excuses to suit your points.

I also don't care what middle-man justification you have to offer, because if you want to stress realism, that's not even close to how real-world markets work. Anyone who puts in effort in the real world, charges a profit margin when he passes the product along. Pathfinder crafters' best result is to make an item for 50% (sometimes more), and then, also sell it for 50%, max - in your own words:

as for the 50% rule and demanding to sell at 90, great, just wait around for the buyer, and don't go adventuring.

...

All this proves that the crafting system is explicitly designed to negate profits from making an actual item, and instead you roll the check for weekly wages, similar to a profession, if you want a profit. Crafting is pretty much a means to pay less than 100% of market price for gear, to a minimum of 50%, which is also the default price at which you're allowed to sell gear. I'll at least respect a game with some market haggling, but oi vey, this is never going to fly in real life. Without a proper trade system, I don't want to talk about magic getting into economics. I'm done with this topic.

I can't honestly see anything wrong with a wizard using Fabricate to create expensive gear, especially if you house rule 0 net profit (pay and acquire the raw material equal to 50% the market price of the final item), and make sure that all craft checks, except negligible ones, still have to be made. Pretty simple stuff.

In my games, a wizard better be able to turn cages, shackles and cell bars into weapons to outfit a mob, given a 5th level spell slot, assuming he knows how to build a weapon in the first place, and should the fighter wish to wear adamantine armour, sure the wizard's ability to cast a spell, and effectively turn a lengthy crafting process into 6 seconds is an insignificant implication on the economy, given an easy house rule to eliminate profit. Worse, it isn't even an effort in RAI, it's simple intuition on what the spell is here for, which I can guarantee you, is NOT intended to make a profit, ergo, eliminate it.

More importantly, this spell is due for any wizard who invests in enough ranks in Craft to be able to make the item, given time, anyway, as well as takes up the role as the party's crafter (which would be going into magical items much sooner than this). Don't forget, that after the item is made, they still have to spend 1 day/1000 gold to enchant it, so it's not like a mundane, mastercraft item, at level 9 (the earliest a PC can cast Fabricate), is going to cut it, when it comes down to what's balanced for that level (at least +3, with up to another +3 in special abilities).

I reiterate, plenty of intelligent fixes to the spell, house-rules, if need be, even RAI, have been proposed, and also 3p crafting variants to better suit-up with. The RAW needs better wording, absolutely, but the problem has been shown to be solvable with minimal effort. Do you still need to bring up the same issue, or do you have an issue that hasn't been addressed, because telling me the spell is broken isn't a problem so much as ignoring the suggested means to fix it.

I actually kept bloodline/patron spells in for my caster, because my rationale was that the "words known" represented your normal casting avenues, but your bloodline or patron spells were specific effects granted from a specific source or patron.
To be honest, I enjoy that I have the mix of them, except when the granted spell is sometimes Flaming Hands, which is technically less useful than gaining 'Burning Flash'.

Tarantula wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Cool. You're thinking about it, rather than handwaving it. If I play in a game world, I want it to make sense. Even though I made that point several times, I don't think many people really thought about it.

Now...I would insist that a guild of wizards would stomp over just about any opposition, if they were numerous and active enough...and it wouldn't take many...especially seeing as they'd be rich, too.

Now...why would there really be that much opposition to the wizards, really? I admit, I've come up with some extreme scenarios in defense of my concept...but frankly, 9 of 10 adventurers will LOVE the wizard who cranks out in...

Do you put this much effort into thinking about how the general stuff is crafted in your game world? Honestly, I handwave all of that. Why? Because it isn't worth the time. Does the book address why fabricate does or does not impact economies? No? Then it isn't important enough to waste time deciding.

You go ahead and feel free.

I have people who actually have character concepts like 'great dwarven smith/warrior'...and you just handwaved him into insignificance.

I don't do that.

If you're using Craft rules as normal, then you just did.

Also, Aelryinth, we /did/ get rid of the ability to make money out of craft, in fact, the proposed Fabricate 1.1 change made it cost more (which in retrospect makes it worthless as a spell. Hmm). I kept in the modified line that said you have to actually have raw material equal to the cost of -buying- the item, and if "You gain finished products of a market value equal to the market value of the materials used." isn't explicit or rude enough (costs you 2x to fabricate than to Craft, thus negligible benefit to using this spell, over buying the items), then replace that line to say "You must provide raw materials equal to 1/2 the market price of the sum of finished products", for a kinder, and more clear wording that negates all profit, except time. You still need to invest ranks in Craft with my version, and this way, the spell accommodates any changes to fix Crafting rules, at the same time.

Problem. Solved.

Honestly, if the outcry is about how it can be used to generate value from nothing, and ruin economy in a game in which the prices of items never change, and are always stacked against the players, then I think you're overthinking one problem and ignoring everything else that's wrong. Like I said, if you're this worried about fabricate, you're playing Markets and Merchants, and the entire Crafting/Buying/Selling system is not your friend, and isn't meant to be. Fact: PCs net 0 gold for the best craft process they can manage (no failures). Fact: NPCs net 100% profit for the very same things (market price is always 2x craft costs).
Every piece of Full Plate that costs you 750 to make should also cost the NPCs the same thing, right? so how's it fair you're always paying 1500, but always selling it at 750 - even when it's never been used? That's not realistic! I demand that my character be able to acquire a merchant's license and peddle wares he's crafted at 90% market price, undercutting all merchants, and netting myself 95% profit margins.

Heck yes. Count me in on Tuesday! I loved the Words of Power and was always saddened that they basically cancelled them as soon as they were released.

The only thing that keeps me from making a wordcaster now is how underpowered at later levels they seem (Time Stop? Mages Disjunction? Miracle? Silly magictalker you can't do that) as well as how they're almost 100% blaster oriented but don't have the support words that truly makes a blaster terrifying. Force Cage (large with holes)+ Meteor Swarm comes to mind.

Plus the huge shift in power between prepared and spontaneous wordcasters.

When there's only three 9th-level words for a Cleric/Oracle, why would you not be an oracle. Not to mention you can shape your wordspells as needed, while the prepared guys have to hope that the Line-attached Ice Beam will be a better idea than the Cone.

So yes you shall have my money indeed sir. I'm hoping this does well enough to garner further support.

Also since I'm playing a necromancer in our current campaign, I would truly love you if you could keep Undeath without the material cost and the same level. Also hoping that it provides some ability to apply templates (bloody, burning, skeletal champion, etc.) preferably at just a HD requirement. Bloody requires more create HD and so on.

Thanks again!

Time Stop?It's still here. The other two, no.

I find that spontaneous casters get catch up to wizard-power in terms of casting with WoP, but with a flexibility that is to be envious of, even though they miss out on some awesome effects- I like to play a mix of blasting as well as field control, but the spell I miss most is Stone Shape, and there is no Shaping group.
Also, even if there only three level nine oracle/cleric words and only 5 Sorc/Wiz words, I'd be fine with not filling out my level 9 words-known, since WoP combinations that work up to 9th level slots are a-plenty. Also, level 9 words are sort of... lackluster. They are a bit underwhelming, since they can't be combined. The most flexibility they have is target words and meta words, and for that, all level 9 words are target restricted, but perhaps that's where meta words can show some oomph?

@Aelryinth, what about turning Fabricate into a spell that simply shortens the time it takes to craft an item into one day, requires you to actually make any/all craft checks (same chance to ruin/fail/pass as normal, but only one roll), allow creation of items on the Magic Item list as long as they're nonmagical items, and forget the masterwork issue, because there's another spell that ignores that problem, and allow the user to work with special materials, such as adamantine, granting that they can procure it.

@Ilja, I'd go a step further and change the wording a little more drastically (in-line with speeding up the crafting process), what do you think?

Nosferatu wrote:

...

I'm not going to get into hard commitments at this point (way, WAY too early for that), but my current line of thinking at the moment is that the odd level damage spells be instantaneous damage spells and the even number levels be a lower damage dealing spell but does duration. This is similar to how wall of fire deals much less damage than fireball, despite wall of fire being a higher level spell. This keeps the duration rule in place and allowing for high damage when you need it while allowing for damage spells to be combined with condition spells.

I didn't say that the barrier word should be removed. I mean that the grouping of words of "wall" should be removed. Why should fire wall not be a fire word? And for what reason (other than wall of fire is a vancian spell) can I not make a cone of fire that stays in a place for a while? Or a burst? The wall group each require the spell use the barrier word. Barrier requires it be grounded to a surface. Why can't I have a ball of fire hanging in the air? If a bunch of flying zombies are coming through a hole in the ceiling, why can't I place a duration ball of fire infront of the hole and weaken or eliminate them all? The rules as they stand right now forbid it for no good reason. That's what I want to fix.

Right on, I'm glad that I initially misunderstood you on both counts.

I also said "wall spells" when I meant "wall words" because I thought you were getting rid of all the words in the wall grouping, but I see your intention, now; its a good question, why wall words couldn't be a part of other relevant groupings (which would also allow you to combine such spells for a crude prismatic wall, maybe)! In any case, I think that, already, some effect words with a duration longer than instantaneous, that can be used with non-Barrier, area Target words - such as Cone, Burst or Line - will remain, just as the Barrier would, only playing by the rules of the different target word.

Some examples of words that do similar things:

^This spell produces a line effect that lasts the entire round. I think it's the only one, thus far, but it would be interesting for it to be a cone as well.

I think that most spells used as a Cone, currently, are instantaneous pulses, which can deliver lasting effects or instant damage, but do not stay on the field. Meanwhile, Burst also specifies that some spells are emanations, which explicitly occupy the area of effect, but "typically", can't be moved, from the area they manifested in. I think this is confusing, as plenty of spells which suggest that they stay on the field, to harass other combatants, are not emanations, such as Caustic Cloud (below). I'm curious how you'd tackle cleaning up that keyword's use, and other target restrictions, so I look forward to your work.

If you're stating that a spell is broken, I think you have to prove that through analysis of the spell, versus the other options to achieve the same goal. We did that. The conclusion was that Fabricate's description wasn't plainly explicit on 1. if it could create masterwork items, 2. if it could create non-magical items in the Magic Items list, and 3. That material quality referred to cost of the raw material (which, as per item creation, should be equal to the cost of 1/2 the market price of the item created), but with these factors unclear, it is neither broken nor balanced, hinging upon the truth behind our interpretations.
Nonetheless, it's also observed that it has suggestive answers, which most people would rationally lean towards; that masterwork is possible (and makes no real difference to your argument against it, by itself), and that there is no profit involved in this undertaking, but time, however, the possible fabrication of non-magical Magic Items are likely not possible, including the production of holy water, which is irrelevant, because they're produced by another spell, instead. Pretty safe to say that Fabricate wasn't intended to make anything, but a sufficiently large number of things, such that problems that came up with the crafting system were hot-fixed, such as the case where going from medium to heavy armour required several weeks of downtime, if the player wished to craft their own new piece. Given this interpretation (and that's largely my main contingency), the spell is great, and a really great choice, but not broken, as there's still niches for the Craft skill that cannot be replicated by the skill.

There's a couple arguments as to which interpretation you're siding on.

If the argument is "why punish the player for doing something that the spell states?" then you have a symptom of a problem. A player is doing something you don't want to happen, BUT the rules allow it. Part of the problem is that you see something that makes it undesirable. So if the rules allow it, we have to ask, both, 'why you don't want it?', and 'why the rules allow it?', and the answers should help fix the real problem.

Why you don't want it?
Earlier you said something along the lines of "because Fabricate lets you go through a process for pure profit", and that's something I wouldn't have come to the conclusion to, because there's a suggestive wording that seems to imply the opposite; there is no profit from my perspective (I'm referring to the very awkwardly writ statement "The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication"). However, it stands to explain your issue (or at least, partly) with it. Another would be the ease of creating FP out of Adamantine or like expensive material, with relative ease. If there are other issues, would you state them?

Why the rules allow it?
All I see is a spell that makes money, material and trade goods isomorphic to any item (and not a creature) that isn't a 'Magic Item', in six seconds, versus six months. I ask you this, is there anything wrong with a spell that, if it were more explicitly stated to simply function as I am interpreting it? Honestly, I think this paragraph could replace the spell description, but I'm interested in forum's opinion and if there anything in the spell's description that explicitly suggests otherwise from my perspective.

My point is that leaning either way on what it does, without the description explicitly stating something - but vaguely suggesting it - still requires RAI either way (it doesn't say MW /cannot/ be created, for example), and your interpretation has the liberty to accommodate the spell's intention based on what's made available, to it's best effect, just as much as mine did. The addition of a spell that allows players to skip a tedious and undesirable process isn't a bad thing - its quite the opposite!

However, if you're pointing out that the spell disturbs the positive metagame, then economics and interpretations aren't the answer: it's human motivation and the rationale of the players. Having said that, the motivation is a balance of character profit, versus the motivation towards fair play, and using the spell as it was likely intended is an option every player has, just as much as abusing the lack of explicit terms, simply because they can. Anyone trying to create adamantine FP out of a small nugget of Adamantine (~with a value of significant disparity), is most certainly trying to abuse it, and my example with the Darkwood buckler is that there's precedence for why a nonmagical Magic Item would not qualify to be fabricated; because it's made from a magical material.

Nosferatu wrote:

EldonG wrote:

So, by RAW, every world should be Ebberon, then.

RAI?

Maybe not.

stuff

I see, either refuse to think it through...or be incapable.

Good answer.

Sarcasm no bueno. Let me try something different; what do you want Fabricate to do?

(Edit: sorry, I meant to ask "what is it you don't want Fabricate to do?", because Aelryinth already answered what he thought was wrong.)

So, by RAW, every world should be Ebberon, then.

RAI?

Maybe not.

No, for a number of reasons, and possibly for other reasons. That's up to the GM to decide. Nothing I see really stops a wizard from deciding that his/her raison d'etre is to build everything. That's how Baker pretty much designed the Artificer class.

I digress. I was saying that those reasons are up to the GMs when they make their world, and have no bearing on this debate. I merely used Eberron as an illustration of how badly the economy would go, if such a thing happened. In Eberron, while adamantine as a mineral ore may be in extremely short supply, all low-magic items are pervasive, while high magic items are rarer than normally so. Its a perfect example of the consequence of a fabricate-mad wizard, but not the only inevitable conclusion of his consequence: Dark Sun is another, on the opposite end of the spectrum.

On the other hand, as a player using the spell, we're not subject to experience the devaluation of an item, when a caster decides to gut a single economy with armours, and this can seem to be a problem. Mind, the system was designed to chronicle the story of epic adventurers, not the wizards who stay locked in their tower (although that's a stereotypically common NPC), but we do have PC downtimes to deal with. So...

Does this mean that I'm admitting that Fabricate is capable of doing what you're accusing it of doing? Yes. Is it the problem that this thread is making it out to be? Only if your game is Markets and Merchants. Crafting and economy are things I like to add in some mechanical detail to my campaigns (simple things like "if <condition>, then multiply or divide article X by constant Y", with conditions like "Great War" multiplying the cost of many magical items, and even mundane weapons, but I do that as a houserule I'm comfortable with making, with tools I employ, similar to a DM screen. I still think there's something wrong about Crafting, and I want a solution to the buying/selling/crafting system that does allow more of a realistic market for the mundane crafter players, because plenty of people I rp with also think of their characters as sometimes being "part-time" adventurers, or even just regular people, who, caught in the unexpected plot train, into the adventure.

A disclaimer I shouldn't have to make: the standard mechanics of the system that are made available to the player are not a representation of the finer details of Golarion's business and trade economy. The only relevance should be what's relevant to the players, which is that the only reason the price of items made by players is 50% of what they buy it for is to clean up the 'carrot' of having item creation cost 50% of regular market price. Start here, and you understand the problem; all items really only cost 50% of what they're listed as; you're either being swindled for +100%, or that's one hefty sales tax. In comes Fabricate, and creates items for 50% of the sale price, and does it almost instantly.

If I must criticise anything, based on this thread, I think the problem is how the DCs work - I think the DC should be factoring in the base cost of the item (so the more expensive it is, the harder it is to make), that mastercraft should scale, based on this DC, instead of being a unique, secondary check against an arbitrary number, and the time it takes should be a factor of both the DC and by how much you beat it by (high DC = high base time, exceeding the DC => cutting down the time).

tl;dr What I'm saying is that Fabricate is fine, but crafting rules aren't.

Its time to build a hyper realistic economy into my game because of a Craft debate on the message boards.

*adds a maximum gold cap based on economic power of each and every town/thorp/city/polis from some 3.e supplement out there*

I'm done.

No seriously, are we really making the point that a mundane smith would be put out of business, because every wizard has nothing better to do than use fabricate, all day, and just make money? And that's a problem?

I think someone explored that concept, a while back. I think it was called Eberron.

A few points I'd like to make out.

1. Magic breaks mundane rules 100% of the time. That's why it's called magic. A wizard can instantly create flames that deal damage comparable to taking a dip in an active volcano, and beyond. How long until your mundane fire does the same thing?

2. Fabricate explicitly states: "The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used" and clearly states that "Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell". A form exists under which a header "magical items" includes the likes of certain, actually non-magical items. This, I think, should have a specific question asked, instead of to say that verbatim, Fabricate denies the creation of such things. Regardless, see point 4.

3. When fabricate says "You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship." I instantly understand that as follows:

'You must make' (obligation)
'an appropriate' (matching)
'Craft check' (-)
to fabricate' (objective)
'requiring a high degree of craftmanship' (conditional quality)

Thus, if any craft check should be made, however many there are, at whatever period of the act of crafting, only those which satisfy the conditional quality (such as masterwork does), must be made.

Nowhere in Fabricate does the exception apply to regular masterwork items, only the question of special materials, of which products are listed as 'magical'. This isn't explicit, but I agree that this statement was appended specifically for the purpose of fabricating masterwork articles, be that even MW armours.

4. For what it's worth, I have this damning piece to add, when it comes to using special materials, such as Adamantine and Mithral, and it's about Darkwood:

I'm afraid, that without an absolute rules siding, the implicit understanding behind fabricate is: Masterworks? Normally, yes. Special Materials that are magically non-magical? No... Maybe... Judge?

Dear OP

under servitor III : like servitor I (different summons)

under servitor I:
"If the target word is boosted, a wordspell with this effect word summons 1d4+1 of the chosen creatures."

I call your attention to the bolded words. Servitor I through IX do not have any boost ability, what so ever.

Effect words are split into groups of similar words. A wordspell typically cannot have more than one effect word from the same group, but there are exceptions. A wordspell can have more than one effect word from the Detection group, but cannot have a wordspell with an effect word from the Detection group and an effect word from any other group.

This segment explains why you cannot make a wordspell made from "Boost Selected Servitor <8 Servitor <8", but you can make a word spell called "Boost Selected Boost Disappear Servitor II", and use a level 8 spell slot for 1d4+1 summons from the level 2 list, which have greater invisibility, for the cost of using two of your precious few meta words/day...

In sum, using Servitor for mass summons is greatly inferior to Summon Monster/Nature's Ally. Servitor shines when, instead, you summon a single creature, in conjunction with a buffing spell. A single invisible creature from the level 7 list will often serve you better, for the same level 8 spell slot cost, than a harrying from 1d4+1 creatures of the level 2 list, except when it won't.

to be honest, I don't get the selected restriction for target. what would happen if you "boost selected servitor" (which in this case increase the effect word by 3)
you could have caster level "target" so if you're level 8, you'll summon 8x a creature (ok, it's a creature from summon I in a 4th level slot, so it's not that powerfull at all)?

@vris, I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'll agree with you that using 'Boost Selected' has been a terrible idea, and makes Servitor less optimal than other word spells, simply because, but hey, it's versatile enough to give you Invisible Stalker, and/or other weird creations that'll take hits otherwise meant for you, and still stay in the game That alone makes it a serious contender for fine-line balance issues, even if it was just adjusted a little bit, don't you think?

As an optional spell system, you can decide on how this works, but note this section on saving throws:

Saving Throw
Most spells that directly affect creatures with a magical effect should allow a saving throw. Spells that create nonmagical materials that then strike or impede creatures (such as ice storm and sleet storm) do not normally require a saving throw.

Spells that require the caster to make an attack roll to hit (even if it's a ranged touch attack) may or may not require a saving throw (enervation and searing light do not, disintegrate does). Attack effects that do not require rolling damage should always allow a saving throw to reduce or negate the effect; otherwise, the spell becomes an obvious choice for anyone of the level to cast it.

However, there's also this on Reflex Saves:

Reflex Save: Spells with Reflex saves usually create a physical burst or spread in an area, like an explosion, which the target is able to dodge with a successful saving throw. In general, making a successful Reflex save means the target dodged the effect, or the effect rolled over or around the target with a lesser effect. Note that you shouldn't build a spell where the caster makes an attack roll and the target also makes a Reflex saving throw; doing so brings Dexterity into play twice for the same spell (once for the target's AC, once for the target's Reflex save modifier).

My suggestion? If a damage dealing aspect of the spell allows a non-reflex save OR if the spell deals damage without rolling (Harm style), then the save stays. If not? Then you're already rolling to hit once; get rid of any reflex saves for half-damage, but remember to keep all saves for additional effects, which can be negated, even on a successful hit.

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Rashagar wrote:

Bit off-topic but:

One thing I really want to do with a Wordcaster is play as one in a long-ish running game purely for the excuse to create physical cards or runes or something to cast with. I just want to cast spells as if I'm casting bones or reading a fortune.

Interesting idea for an archetype. Maybe even a new class. Anybody elese have other ideas for archetypes/prestige classes/new classes that you feel is perfect for a wordcaster.

Might be a funny way to bring the Wild Mage variant into pathfinder. Cobbling together a functioning and hopefully situationally useful spell from a randomized subset of known wordspells. (like drawing a hand of cards or finding a pattern in a thrown handful of runes [like scrabble tiles?]) Would be a very Last Unicorn "magic do as you will" kind of feeling. Like the source of your arcane power is using you rather than the other way around.

Ahhh, I always loved Book of Nine's crusader, too; they had abilities which you used from a 'hand' that you 'drew' from a shuffled, self-made deck. I might suggest looking into that concept while you have cards of pre-made wordspells that you want to use. It could work!

I'm interested, BUT I have a few questions on your motivations behind why this and that. New Death words would be welcome. Thank you.

1. I find that the idea of using the lowest duration for a spell is, generally speaking, a good thing. For example, spell-word Wrack, or "Anthrax", as I loving call it, is a 1round/cl duration effect word at level 1. I can cast it as a burst, line, or cone, or even a wall, which sickens, until the spell expires, but while that's standard, you can't get much out of Fire Blast and Wrack, together - if that wordspell worked, you would not only place the sickened effect on all targets, but also deal damage in the same turn.
Is your intention to see to players casting spells such as Wrack and Fire Blast to create a Fireball that also sickens, as a level 4 spell? Don't you think that, while the combination seems to suggest it should a full spell-level higher, that being able to combine effects like this is a major action economy advantage? Why, given this rule-change, would I ever NOT cast a spell that deals damage AND provides lasting status effects, for a higher spell cost? Why cast any Barrier, if instead you could use Wind Blast with any instantaneous damage spell, to create a superior effect?
If you change this rule, I feel that the resulting wordspell permutations are going to be far superior in power and effect, than standard spells- which is going against the point of it. Wordspells are a new form of magic, yes, but their principle is being an older, rawer, and less-refined form of casting, than conventional spells. They're meant to be more flexible, and while I find that the damage scales, pretty much on-par (and frankly, its more efficient), adding status ailments on top of them seems over-powered. As a more balanced alternative, why not use Wrack with Blizzard or Fog Cloud, as it already stands to be powerful crowd control?

2. A similar issue with your rationale behind wall spells. Initially, I thought I could use Fire Blast with Barrier to create a wall of fire, that was very powerful, but then I realized that, while I could, it would only last for an instant. However, this isn't a waste. Using Boost Barrier, I could create any path I desire, perhaps, in the form of a zig-zag, snake, or really, creativity is the limit. With Fire Blast, it's literally talking about the ground exploding, and delivering damage to everyone who is standing on the square.
Further more, lets talk damage comparison. Wall of Fire is a standard spell which Fire Wall directly connects. Unlike my criticism with instantaneous spells, spell-word 'Fire Wall' CAN be combined with spell-word Wrack, for a very potent battlefield control spell.
I don't see why Barrier spells are going to be removed, but I might actually suggest allowing words from the Wall group to be cast in conjunction with other Wall group words, then maybe add a couple more Wall group words? A level 7 word 'Iron Wall', in conjunction with Wall of Fire, could resemble level 8 standard spell 'Wall of Lava', but maybe a little stronger. I think this would have to thought about more, than to say "remove!"

In general, I love WoP's flexibility, and rising power, over time. There's barely anything required, except expanding the spell slots into 10th, 11th and further up, to take this class into Epic as it stands. I'd love to hear ideas over the forum on more words coming in to the mix.

Just to be clear, I don't think the idea of rolling skills in a combat round to cast a spell is a mechanic D20 champions, as it risks taking up extra time, increasing complications, and can interrupt the flow of combat rounds when one player has a slew more dice to roll and resolve, than another. We have enough flurrying monks, and it should only be an exceptional description of when/why the spirits don't answer (perhaps the beholder's main eye frightens them from coming to your call)! You could also use the failure to answer to describe the perceptions of what an antimagic field feels like, to your animistic casters.
What I do think, is that it's amazing poetry for out-of-combat spell-casting, and for the precise reason that it communicates your intent to your GM: a sorcerer, frightens the winds with tales of a great flame coming from the south. She expends an appropriate spell for the effect, and explains that 'with the winds fleeing northwards, the Orc raiding party will find it harder to track us, especially if they bring lanterns, or torches on their search.' Likewise, an Oracle can parley with spirits of healing to linger, after she has cast healing magic, to explain how she provides the aid-another bonus for all nearby healers, by expending her highest cure spell.
My only criticism is when you consider skill-check routines as a part of games, that this is another reason why non-casters get the short end; even at 2+int mod skill ranks/level, this greatly expands what most casters can do, while it leaves the fighter to be a two-trick pony. BUT I DIGRESS, THIS IS NO SORCERY.

Also, I wish there was a way to cast "Detect Charisma", or something, or for for casting Cha modifiers to be a part of your magical auras. I think that would be a neat tell-tale factor when using Detect Magic, and finding out that one member of the party seems to be extraordinarily potent in some non-radioactive factor. Likewise, for the other casters, we can see Int representing extremely complex arcane expressions and Wis denoting the depths of insight into nature of things, as spells manifest uniquely by the classes they come from

As a thematic implement, I love it, and I think I WILL incorporate your idea of using Cha-based skills to as a means to how she acknowledges her commands to animistic spirits. That's also a pretty sweet mental image that I'll have in my mind, but I fear that my group won't appreciate it as much, if it takes up time, in the combat order. Out-of-combat situations, though, I think I'll be sure to ham it up! It ALMOST makes me wish I had diplomacy trained (sadly, she only has 2 - Bluff and Intimidate - at decent levels, due to low skill points), as well. :p

As for how I see Charisma, "force of personality" is often what it's called, but I see it as a spiritual presence. If you think about why it's a standard casting-stat for Bards, Oracles and Sorcerers, I think what is common element between these three classes is that they have the ability to alter the winds of fate; the bard's songs change the tides of battle, while the sorcerer is a magnet for arcane and eldritch powers, while the Oracle is the voice (well, not always - the instrument, shall we say) of a divine will. I think it's a shame that Charisma is grouped as a mental stat, because the actual uses of it reflect something that is much beyond the physical/mental spectrum; Charisma-based skills really use ranks to represent how good you are at them, but the stat as a representation of your spiritual nexus, not only adds to this, but also fuels the essence of the magic that is bestowed through the same channel.

I picture it as a spiritual faucet.

Also, since the Pathfinder magic is based on Dualism (separation of body and soul), I should think you've got something, there. The "bloodline" represents what's in your body, but Charisma represents what's in your soul. for Dualism (and any decent sorcerer build) to work, there's got to be some interaction between the two. Almost like saying it's not just about having the blood in your veins, you need to also have some spiritual power (Cha 11+, but more like 15+) that's able to make use of this power. The bloodline can be passed on from generation to generation, until finally, one with the right magical vestige is born.

Enter, the sorcerer.

I'm playing an ifrit as a primal bloodline sorceror (fire element, naturally), and using the Words of Power variant for spell-casting.

Contrary to the whole genealogy, I'm only advocating her race as a means to justify her edge over fire magic; she's naturally comfortable with things hotter than most humanoids, what with her class fire resists, but has no special twist of fate or events that mark her as a spell-caster (she could have easily been any class, with her backstory).

Her power may or may not be cyclic with regards to her animistic belief; she understands that the world is exhibited by spirits of the classical elements, and using Words of Power as a concept of an old, forgotten magic, she manifests spells by issuing a spell as a set of commands for the spirits to act upon. She has no proof of such spirits (so it is purely a belief), but she makes the spells, and when she gives the word, the magic happens. It could be interesting to talk about the unseen force behind why her powers manifest, but I've decided to leave that open, as I've only started playing the character, and the freedom remains to fill in these gaps, later.

As for how she learnt the words of power? My story is a scapegoat, there: her foster father tried to teach her the learned magic of wizardry, but she couldn't control it, and then, 'this and that' led to her Djinn grandfather making an appearance, and he gave her the nudge to think about casting spells as a command that the spirits behind the material world have to obey.

As far as turning the Primal Bloodline into something Mythic? Hmmm, that's hard because the bloodline's name already suggests something epic. The Primal Bloodline assumes some injection of a primordial of the classical elements, beyond the common ancestry of an outsider from the plane of Fire. Because of the nature and concept behind Words of Power, I feel like it could lend credence to the hypothesis of 'what if the belief turns out to be true?': my character is actually playing with the very forces of classical creation, rather than fiddling with the state of reality, like other contemporary casters. Her magic system suggests that it pre-dates the existing pantheon of gods, even, and stems from the same universal source of power that created deities, and other cosmic entities, in the first place.

+1

One tool of balancing spells with effects based on die-types, especially those which can be combined with other words, is to down-shift the die-type, and offer a boost option.

Based on word spells I've seen, I've noted that these are existing general purpose uses of 'boost'

Effect Words' Boost
- increase die types
- upgrade spell effect (such as Concealing words)
- upgrade spell function (such as 'Bleeding Wounds')
- grants more of an option (such as Change words)
- cast as an immediate action (without Quicken)
- modify target conditions (such as 'Suppress' and 'Repulse')
- modify target restrictions
- modify frequency of spell effect
- deny secondary saving throws
- be able to move an emanation

Target Words' Boost
- expand the coverage of the targets
(this one's mostly covered, I think)

Given that we have such boost options, it might also help to say that creating new Meta words should be careful to justify having a similar effect as a standard spell; is taking a meta word that allows you to turn a spell with an instantaneous duration, but one that persists, dealing a fraction of the damage over time, balanced by merely increasing the level of the spell? Does the power behind it adequately justify using a meta-slot?

Someone consider a meta word I'm making up (this is the kind I'd love to see), which I called "Ball" for simplicity, which can be applied to certain Effect and Target words, which I think need need some expression:

I would think that this is due to badly written work; an elemental damage spell that is turned into a ray, through "Selected", OUGHT to no longer have a save for "half damage", but may retain a save for any secondary effects that come with the spell.

Selected merely reads:
Level 0
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
A wordspell with this target word affects a single target within range. If the wordspell deals energy damage, this word creates a ray that requires a ranged touch attack to hit, or it can be used as a melee touch attack with no range (decided by the wordcaster when the wordspell is cast). If it is used as a melee touch attack and the attack misses, the wordcaster can hold the charge and try again with subsequent attacks.

I don't see any meaningful benefit in using a ray spell to hit a target, and granting a save for half damage (except maybe hoping to score a critical hit), when an area spell can do the same trick, with potentially multiple targets. At the same time, it makes complete sense to me, for such a spell to offer saves that negate non-hit-point damaging effects, such as the effects of some standard ray spells like "Ray of Enfeeblement", and "Ray of Exhaustion", which offer the save after the ray makes contact. It is noted that "Polar Ray" offers no save for the ability damage, but is an 8th level spell, and can be compared to Word Effect "True Fire", as a special case of high arcana.

Added note, the duration of multi-word effects is the lowest listed, and some of the Acid spells have their durations switched (Corrosive Bolt and Acid Wave), but if you were to use Acid Wave (Duration 1 round/level) in conjunction with any instantaneous spell, such as Fire Blast, you would lose out on the sickened effect, as well as being able to bypass SR, BUT you'd have a spell that caps at 20d6, and deals [acid, fire]. In general, such versatile options also sacrifices the secondary effects of specific word spells, making it less meaningful to have a save for partial.