PaleRyder's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. 13 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The Dread Pirate Bobs

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cosmo wrote:

This issue should be fixed now.


Thanks Cos!

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber


I'm wondering about the recently released Bestiary and my Pathfinder RPG subscription. Under my subscriptions it used to list the Bestiary as the next item to ship but now the Bestiary order is gone. It says the next item to ship is the GM Screen but it also says the "most recent product" was the Core Rule Book. The Bestiary is nowhere to be found. There is no Bestiary under my order history and I have not received an email. I just want to make sure I am still going to get a copy!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I like your post, Frogboy and I think it is an interesting topic. Don't let some of the overreactions get to you. The goal of Pathfinder to remain compatible with the 3.5 material made it necessary to adopt the majority of the ruleset "as is" warts and all. Some changes that might have produced an even better result couldn't be made without a significant rewrite of the system which wasn't the intent of the designers. I don't see the harm in asking what would be possible given the chance to change anything.

Pathfinder is a great system and an improvement on 3.5. However it is not a bad thing to be diligent in considering things that might make the system even better. It's when you think there is no room for improvement when your problems really begin. "When you are green you are growing, when you are ripe you are rotting" and all that jazz.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I would like to see them remove static bonuses with the exception of level based bonuses and possibly feat bonuses from the "to hit" roll. Under the current rules, exceptionally high attributes and powerful magic weapons are too dominant in their influence on the outcome of an attack roll which, in effect, is the roll "to participate". I believe these bonuses should still be added to the damage roll and thus reward players with optimized builds for their efforts and ingenuity. However, the all or nothing nature of the to hit roll is too big a factor in the enjoyment of a combat to allow it to be affected to such a degree by these static character traits. It limits character flexibility and can be a major problem in mixed groups of power gamers and role-players, imo.

Naturally a reworking of the AC system and perhaps the spell DC system would be necessary after such a change.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm afraid you are going to have to go with your own intuition on this one. The whole problem with the non-detection spell description resides in those two words "such as". These words can be read to mean "for example" or they can be read to mean "similar to". The first interpretation lends itself to the idea that all divination spells are affected and the list of spells following are examples of divination spells. The second that only divination spells with an undefined set of qualities similar to the spells listed are affected. Thus arriving at a conclusion using RAW is impossible (unless there are other rules I've yet to see that clarify this, I'd love to know about them if they exist).

I think your interpretation is certainly reasonable. The best you can do is come to a decision and play it consistently.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
PaleRyder wrote:
I'm trying to understand why an arcane caster has to pay a 25,000gp diamond to duplicate a spell using Wish when the cleric doesn't

It was that way in 3.5 edition and Cleric often have a god who performs the miracle?

PaleRyder wrote:
my player's first reaction would be to figure out how long it would take to give everyone +5's across all stats and then prioritize said distribution.

I do this (as a player) in every 3.5 game I've ever played (getting a +5 to one as often as I had 25k over my 17th level.) Which almost always resulted in me being 2 - 3 levels below everyone else.

Making it gold instead of xp severely limits me doing so. Gold is a LOT less readily available as xp.

Right. This is why I'd be concerned about removing Wish's component cost. If you could cast Wish without a component cost at all and had 2 weeks of "downtime" where you could theoretically cast Wish x number of times per day during that downtime I think my players would be using it to buff all their stats for free.

I do understand that the cleric's god is the one who adjudicates the Miracle. However I think it would be rather difficult for the DM to suddenly undo the effects of duplicated spells that were made using Miracle especially if there are quite a few. I believe one of my clerics is planning on memorizing Miracle every day to be used as a flexible spell slot. This is another reason I find it odd that the Cleric doesn't have a component cost to duplicate a spell. The way it stands now, a high level cleric can "dial up" his god X number of times per day and ask him to cast a spell for him. It feels like it cheapens the power and awe of a Miracle to use it like that.

I'm considering creating a separate spell that only mimics the spell duplication portion of Miracle and Wish (that has a much cheaper component cost) for clerics and arcane casters to use and keep the rest of the different uses for the respective spells the same with the high component cost. You could then still duplicate a spell using Miracle or Wish; but it would cost you the hefty component (for both clerics and arcane casters) or you could memorize and cast the other spell at a cheaper price without the high component price (and the resulting class inequality that comes with it as it is written). Does anyone foresee any problems with splitting the spell like that?

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Selgard wrote:

A long long (long long long) time ago Wish and Miracle were balanced because Miracle had the 'Rp requirement" that the deity in question had to approve of the miracle, and thus the DM didn't have to worry about the PC running around blowing his 9th level spell selection on Miracle spells every day.

Needless to say, "RP requirements" have gone away and we're just left with the base spells.

Its also worth noting that both spells used to cost an elephants weight in XP.

Although IIRC the XP component also didn't apply to the cleric's spell duplication, only the arcane caster.

I don't know if I can consider removing the spell component from Wish since the Wish spell has the whole +1 inherent bonus to stats ability. I'm sure my player's first reaction would be to figure out how long it would take to give everyone +5's across all stats and then prioritize said distribution.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm trying to understand why an arcane caster has to pay a 25,000gp diamond to duplicate a spell using Wish when the cleric doesn't have the same restriction using Miracle. I'm not concerned about whether the cost is or is not appropriate per se but more interested in the decision to favor one class over the others on an almost identical ability. If anyone has any thoughts, opinions, or insight about this, I'd love to hear it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ah yes... the iconic, scythe-wielding, smite paladin... the Prim Reaper! Brings new meaning to the term Death Metal.

I've no idea if there is special text about this particular ability because I'm still plugging my way through the rulebook but it looks like the smite damage would be multiplied.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"I know you know this, and any interpretation such as your hypothetical one is munchkinism.

A lot of rules are not clearly written, and there are rules, that even though they are clear, can be purposely wrongfully interpreted. I am sure such rules could be written to avoid any loopholes, but to avoid reading a book written in legalese and specifically explaining every scenario, the authors assumed common sense would come into play for most of the rules. If they player lacks common sense or decides to pretend they dont have the DM is the final arbitrator of what does and does not make sense."

You're correct and I admit that my hypothetical example is an blatant abuse of the rules. Sometimes when dealing with a Rules as Written type argument like this one turned out to be with my player; I resort to the most extreme interpretation to show why I can't use RAW. It's a poor argument technique I need to work on. To be fair, the player wasn't arguing for my maximized 4th level fireball example, but was arguing for a similar spell to the 5th level heightened, silent fireball in the first post.

I definitely agree that the DM is the final arbiter or what does and does not make sense. Sometimes, though, when I find myself saying "no" quite a bit or in a heated argument with a typically level-headed player, I feel I need to step back and consider the argument more thoroughly to be sure it isn't me who is judging hastily. When I searched the forums; I found a single thread with 1 post for and 1 post against what I thought was correct so I thought it prudent to solicit the community for assistance.

Thanks for your thoughts!

EDIT: Thanks too Nethys, for the descriptive interpretation with mechanics, it is very well done.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I tend to agree with you.

However, when reading (or when I'm read) the description of the Heighten Spell feat; I'm confronted with: "The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level." Which is being used to imply that if you first Silent the spell (a 3rd level spell using up a 4th level slot as you rightly pointed out) then Heighten the spell (use Heighten to raise the effectively 3rd level spell to 5th level) then the spell is no harder to prepare or cast than a 5th level spell.

Now, this interpretation is ripe for abuse: what if I Heighten a Maximized Fireball to 4th level, is it a 4th level spell? Good Heavens No! IMO.

While I do agree with you, I felt it necessary to consider the issue from all sides in case I am making too narrow an interpretation. I really appreciate your feedback, thanks!

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In my mind; it seems obvious that the way Heighten Spell would work with other metamagic feats is that you would first heighten the spell to the DC level you desire and then add the metamagic feat. For example; if I wanted to cast a Heightened, Silent Fireball at a 5th level spell DC; it would be a 6th level spell: Heighten Spell to 5th level and then apply the Silent Spell feat raising the spell level to 6.

In my last game session, it was suggested that it should not work this way and that you could use the Heighten Spell feat to raise the DC of a Silent Fireball (4th level) to that of a 5th level spell for the cost of a 5th level spell slot.

When I did a forum search for Heighten Spell, there was an archived thread where one poster played it using the first method and another poster played it using the second.

Would people mind chiming in on how they would rule this combination, please?