| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a spell has somatic components it gains the manipulate trait, so it would draw ops.
Typically I'd think an enemy would be unwilling unless they were able to identify the spell as it was being cast. Just because the player/DM knows it's heal and beneficial doesn't mean the NPC does. That is a very good point I had never considered. Does the enemy get any idea of what the spell is when they have to decide if they are willing? Is the default stance "unwilling" to accept spells cast by the other side and you only change to willing if you recognize the spell? Do they have some idea of what is going on since no hostile spells require willing targets? Of course a cleric can take the Selective Energy class feat (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=283), which seems to imply that 3 action heals do heal enemies or there wouldn't be a feat to avoid it. I didn't see a similar class feat for druids though.
I have a player that is convinced that because the casting times of spells appears to be based on the components of the spell, that removing the verbal component of a spell with the silent metamagic action would reduce the casting time of the following spell by 1 action. My ruling was that if the metamagic did so, it would explicitly state that it would, so no, you didn't get a silent spell that was the same casting activity as the regular spell. It would take the one action before in addition to the normal casting time. He wasn't thrilled by my ruling so I promised I would ask here for the general consensus.
There's nothing in the wording to denote light of sight required for DM, it's just a true/false state that's only fooled by an illusion school spell of a spell level higher than that of DM. So if it's in the next room on the bed in the hotel, it'll ding as long as it's close enough. So if you enchant the drawer with some hiding spell, that should do the trick as long as it's not an archmage trying to find itAs far as I can tell, protections against detect magic are as simple as the drawer itself. The +1 dagger is out of line of effect in the drawer, so it wouldn't be detected inside it. So putting it under a thin false bottom should protect it from detection. You would have to find it by searching. There is also nothing in the wording of Detect Magic that exempts it from line of effect rules, which apply to all spells unless otherwise stated. It is listed as simply an emanation with a 30' radius.
My interpretation is that if they meant you could only push someone directly back they would have used different language. First, they say "push away" not directly back. Then they say the pusher must go the same distance and the same direction. That is also unusual language if they meant directly back only. My main restriction would be that each square must be farther away from the pusher than the previous, limiting you to the 3 squares you mentioned. There are other pushing effects that I wouldn't allow that with, like hydraulic push, since it would have less control at range.
The big weakness in the Detect Magic spell is that it just tells you if something magical is somewhere in the 30' radius of the spell. In 1e, you could just concentrate for a few rounds and the items in the area became obvious to the caster. For example, the characters walk into the wizard's research lab and there are 30 scrolls sitting in little shelves around the room. The GM knows that 3 of them are magic scrolls and the other 27 are not. He tells the players after they cast Detect Magic "You detect magic in the room". Now what? How do they find the magic ones, because they are not going to stop once they know there is magic of some kind in the room? Do you send the caster out in the hallway, bring out 1 scroll at a time and recast the spell 30 times? Do you have him cast Read Aura 30 times over the course of 30 minutes? Even if you just hand wave it and say they find them over the course of a 10 minute search, the process for the characters is just ridiculously tedious. I agree that the spell needed to be nerfed, it revealed too much, especially working through materials and spotting high level illusions, and ruined encounters unless you explicitly planned around it. I feel that they nerfed it too far.
Thanks for all the good suggestions. I was getting too far in the weeds and treating their search as more of an encounter and less as exploration. I ran Sunday and just had the default search take 10 min, so that people could also be doing treat wounds, etc. at the same time, and assumed that detect magic would be cast at the opportune times. It does seem odd that a wizard would have designed the Detect Magic spell to work this way. Why make it so hard on yourself when you could have just made the magic auras visible?
When I first read Detect Magic, I thought it was going to be a cool change. Players wouldn't be using it to automatically see through illusions, find hidden magic items behind loose stones in the wall, etc. Now they would have to rely on their skills and more specialized spells. What has actually happened is that everything grinds to a halt as soon as Detect Magic pings positive. Now they have to go through an elaborate search algorithm to discover which of the 20 items they can see is magical. This involves a combination of moving around the room and moving items around so they are out of line of effect or outside the 30' radius. Then you hide the found magic item and repeat the process to see if there are more. I am torn about how I want to treat this. One would be to just fast forward through the search process and tell them what is magical and tick off some time. I thought about treating Detect Magic as an imprecise sense and letting them know what square the item is in on an easy perception check. I am reluctant to just make the item glow for the caster, but it does have its attractions. Now they know that the third sword from the left in the rack of eight is the magical one and we can move on without the search routine.
Adding the shove trait to shields seems like the way to go. It is more logical than the shove trait on a light mace. I'll have to see of my GM will buy it.
I am not particularly fond of the idea of destroying a wand just because it was used twice in one day. My change would be to make the overcharge roll before you try to cast the spell each extra time per day after the first. Success allows the spell to be cast and failure doesn't cast the spell and deactivates the wand until daily preparations. The downside of trying to use a wand more than once per day is that you may waste the spell casting actions in combat and deactivate the wand. A nuisance, but not as negative and extreme as total destruction. The upside is that you may get 1 or more extra uses from the wand before it is deactivated. I thought about making it broken, but that can be fixed in 10 minutes and I figured that was too many potential uses.
I like the way that Mutants and Masterminds handles complications. They don't give any abilities in return for the flaw. You can take all you want. When the complication causes issues for the character in the game, you get the equivalent of a hero point. If your feeble Aunt June never gets kidnapped, you get nothing. They explained that allowing people to front load complications with character advantages just gets them avoided or ignored. By having the complication arise during play to give an in game advantage means that if you want the resource, you have to play the complication. Great design move, IMO.
Lay on Hands heightens too. At 10th level you would be healing 30.
I think that they mean you are not fatigued if the spell lists a maximum duration. Some spells are just "sustained" and you would be fatigued if you sustained them for 10 minutes. If it was "sustained 1 minute", you can't go 10 mins. If it were "sustained 1 hour", you can go that long without becoming fatigued.
I think the intention is that the first attack by every attacker in their round until the beginning of the caster's next turn gets the benefit. There is no way that this would be a 7th level spell when all it is is a True Strike usable by one other person on one attack. Even with my interpretation, I don't see this as a 7th level spell.
Let's say that I am an expert crafting a level 5 magic item worth 160 gp. My work per day is 1 gp. After 4 days I spend 160 gp worth of materials and I have an item worth 160 gp. If I sell it for the "market price", I make no profit and I have spent 4 gp worth of labor. If I set out for another 4 days to reduce my costs by 4gp, I can sell it at market price without losing money. But now I have spent another 4gp worth of labor just to lower the price of materials. I have invested 156 gp in materials and 8 gp of labor, still 4 more than the market price of the item. If I am a crafter trying to make a living making magic items (or anything using the default crafting rules) I don't see that I have any option other than to charge the market price + my labor for those first 4 days. Am I missing something? Do I make sure I only work on easy stuff far below my level so that I happen to have a few crits and no chances of failure to make up the lost 4 days of work?
For adding monsters for homebrews and non Paizo material into Fantasy Grounds, there is a Green Ronin product, the Advanced Bestiary, that you can use to import and edit creatures. https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=GRR2901e
salt-water test for your dice? You can check it out here. https://lifehacker.com/check-the-balance-of-your-gaming-dice-with-a-cup-of- sal-1712657312
If they are run by a guy named Tucker, they can make 10th level characters wet themselves. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ncfd?What-are-Tuckers-Kobolds |