Fore! Four?
This is what detect magic is for, especially since it's at will. That's how you know exactly which spells someone has on them. Then you can specifically target the one you want to get rid of. And yes, it takes 3 rounds, so it's a trade off. Blow away a random spell quickly, or target slowly. If it's an ally under an enemy spell, you probably take the time to target the right spell, if it's an enemy, it might be worth it to randomly dispel spells until you get them all.
And that assumes you didn't see the spell being cast, in which case you get a spellcraft check to figure out what it is without having to detect it. As stated above, you can make a check with K(Arcana) to notice a subtle spell, but the detect magic is more sure. So there are all sorts of ways to identify that one spell you want to blast.
I thought detect magic just gave you school and rough level estimate with aura. Did nt realise it gave spells. Thoguht arcane sight did that?
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Even if you don't know the specific spell, you should be able to say "I'm targeting the spell that's letting them resist fire damage" and not worry about if it's resist elements or protection from elements, or something else. You're still targeting a spell, just not necessarily calling it out by name. If they happen to have multiple spells up that qualify, then the GM can randomly determine it.
To use the firing into a crowd analogy, you can target the guy in the top hat, even if you don't know his name. If there are two guys in top hats, then you just have to hope you're going after the right one.
CEO
|
The way it reads to me is you need that to target a spell you do not know about, otherwise it seems it just zaps the highest level one active.
Kinda like just shooting into a crowd vs targeting the leader. Your gonna get one either way but is it the best one? well if ya dont know what all he has active then maybe not. You can't just say "umm his best buff"
The arcana skill allows you to know what he has active
core I could be wrong
That's the way I read it too. Of course, I am not the end-all expert on the rules (that would be Jason), but that will be the way I am going to play it in my home campaign.
-Lisa
Even if you don't know the specific spell, you should be able to say "I'm targeting the spell that's letting them resist fire damage" and not worry about if it's resist elements or protection from elements, or something else. You're still targeting a spell, just not necessarily calling it out by name. If they happen to have multiple spells up that qualify, then the GM can randomly determine it.
To use the firing into a crowd analogy, you can target the guy in the top hat, even if you don't know his name. If there are two guys in top hats, then you just have to hope you're going after the right one.
That's work for targetting the abjuration spell on that guy, but I wouldn't allow someone to say, aw yeah, il just target whatever gives him an AC bonus.
Don't you use Spellcraft, rather than Knowledge(Arcana), to identify spells? After all, Knowledge(Arcana) is for arcane matters, not necessarily other things. So a druid's spells wouldn't be covered by Knowledge(Arcana), but instead with.... well, Nature or Religion?
Don't you use Spellcraft, rather than Knowledge(Arcana), to identify spells? After all, Knowledge(Arcana) is for arcane matters, not necessarily other things. So a druid's spells wouldn't be covered by Knowledge(Arcana), but instead with.... well, Nature or Religion?
Only for divan spells. if the spell is arcane in nature then , religion or nature checks would be useless. Unless that spell is on their list as well
|
Contributor
|
Don't you use Spellcraft, rather than Knowledge(Arcana), to identify spells? After all, Knowledge(Arcana) is for arcane matters, not necessarily other things. So a druid's spells wouldn't be covered by Knowledge(Arcana), but instead with.... well, Nature or Religion?Only for divan spells. if the spell is arcane in nature then , religion or nature checks would be useless. Unless that spell is on their list as well
Per Table 5-6 on page 67 of the Beta rules, for the task "Identify a spell effect that is in place" you must make a Knowledge (Arcana) skill check with a DC 20 + spell level. It doesn't specify whether the spell is arcane or divine in origin.
I don't know what the final rules will say, of course.
One other thing about dispel magic. (Not to throw gasoline on this fire, but...) In the cases when a specific spell effect (out of many in place on the same subject) is not being targeted, why does it dispel the highest level spells, first? Wouldn't the lower-level spells be more susceptible to being dispelled due to their relatively lower power?
Only for divan spells. if the spell is arcane in nature then , religion or nature checks would be useless. Unless that spell is on their list as well
Surely for divan spells the oft ignored Knowledge: Furniture would be used? ;)
[sorry couldn't resist]
BD
One other thing about dispel magic. (Not to throw gasoline on this fire, but...) In the cases when a specific spell effect (out of many in place on the same subject) is not being targeted, why does it dispel the highest level spells, first? Wouldn't the lower-level spells be more susceptible to being dispelled due to their relatively lower power?
I think that was chosen to make a "blind" targeted dispel useful. If it went from highest level to lowest, you could presume it will attempt to dispel the most powerful - and there for the most likely to be useful to dispel.
Conversely, if a player tossed a "blind" targeted dispel at a major buffed enemy, and ended up dispelling light instead of, say stoneskin, that would be a bit of a miffed player.
I'm a little confused by this comment:
"Ice storm, for example, deals the same amount of damage, but now also includes an effect that makes the area difficult terrain and imposes a penalty on Perception checks."
Er...wasn't that what 3.5 Ice Storm always did?
|
Contributor
|
One other thing about dispel magic. (Not to throw gasoline on this fire, but...) In the cases when a specific spell effect (out of many in place on the same subject) is not being targeted, why does it dispel the highest level spells, first? Wouldn't the lower-level spells be more susceptible to being dispelled due to their relatively lower power?I think that was chosen to make a "blind" targeted dispel useful. If it went from highest level to lowest, you could presume it will attempt to dispel the most powerful - and there for the most likely to be useful to dispel.
Conversely, if a player tossed a "blind" targeted dispel at a major buffed enemy, and ended up dispelling light instead of, say stoneskin, that would be a bit of a miffed player.
That makes sense from a gameplay perspective. It goes along with the "keep the game fun" approach that the Paizonians have been following. A part of me is really tempted to formulate an in-game explanation for the rule, but I'm not going to try. :)
One other thing about dispel magic. (Not to throw gasoline on this fire, but...) In the cases when a specific spell effect (out of many in place on the same subject) is not being targeted, why does it dispel the highest level spells, first? Wouldn't the lower-level spells be more susceptible to being dispelled due to their relatively lower power?I think that was chosen to make a "blind" targeted dispel useful. If it went from highest level to lowest, you could presume it will attempt to dispel the most powerful - and there for the most likely to be useful to dispel.
Conversely, if a player tossed a "blind" targeted dispel at a major buffed enemy, and ended up dispelling light instead of, say stoneskin, that would be a bit of a miffed player.
Another way to look at it is Dispel is sort of designed as an offensive spell to be cast against spellcasters, removing their buffs. So it makes sense that if it's not 'locked on' to a specific target, it'd target the most powerful spell it can, kind of like a missile locking onto the hottest target it sees hoping that's the enemy engine if there's no laser guide in place.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm a little confused by this comment:
"Ice storm, for example, deals the same amount of damage, but now also includes an effect that makes the area difficult terrain and imposes a penalty on Perception checks."
Er...wasn't that what 3.5 Ice Storm always did?
Yes, for the 1 round duration of the spell. When I read this in the preview, I thought it meant that the difficult terrain part would last longer as the ice stays around until it melts now.
Yes, for the 1 round duration of the spell. When I read this in the preview, I thought it meant that the difficult terrain part would last longer as the ice stays around until it melts now.I'm a little confused by this comment:
"Ice storm, for example, deals the same amount of damage, but now also includes an effect that makes the area difficult terrain and imposes a penalty on Perception checks."
Er...wasn't that what 3.5 Ice Storm always did?
That's a reasonable guess, but maybe the sentence is just there for folks who might be thinking of converting from AD&D to Pathfinder. ;-)
Another way to look at it is Dispel is sort of designed as an offensive spell to be cast against spellcasters, removing their buffs. So it makes sense that if it's not 'locked on' to a specific target, it'd target the most powerful spell it can, kind of like a missile locking onto the hottest target it sees hoping that's the enemy engine if there's no laser guide in place.One other thing about dispel magic. (Not to throw gasoline on this fire, but...) In the cases when a specific spell effect (out of many in place on the same subject) is not being targeted, why does it dispel the highest level spells, first? Wouldn't the lower-level spells be more susceptible to being dispelled due to their relatively lower power?I think that was chosen to make a "blind" targeted dispel useful. If it went from highest level to lowest, you could presume it will attempt to dispel the most powerful - and there for the most likely to be useful to dispel.
Conversely, if a player tossed a "blind" targeted dispel at a major buffed enemy, and ended up dispelling light instead of, say stoneskin, that would be a bit of a miffed player.
Um.. guys? You might want to read the blog again - it doesn't dispel the highest spell level, it dispels the highest *caster* level that the dispeller's roll can handle. If more than one spell at the highest caster level, probably still random if you don't target it.
Given that *all* the spells on a caster could easily be at the same caster level, this gives you *one* shot to dispel something.
By the way, for the "kill by dispelling while they're up 200'" issue, remember a dispelled fly acts as a feather fall.
|
Director of Games
|
Yes, for the 1 round duration of the spell. When I read this in the preview, I thought it meant that the difficult terrain part would last longer as the ice stays around until it melts now.I'm a little confused by this comment:
"Ice storm, for example, deals the same amount of damage, but now also includes an effect that makes the area difficult terrain and imposes a penalty on Perception checks."
Er...wasn't that what 3.5 Ice Storm always did?
Hmm, I just realized that I did not make this clear. Joel is correct.. the ice and Perception penalty now have a duration that is greater than 1 round.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
The bloodline concept for the sorcerer has always been a solid idea and a great innovation IMO. I've personally enjoyed playing an air elemental bloodline character and found the options it presents to be great, so good show! I would never have played a 3.x sorcerer, but a straight up PFRPG (ie no splatbooks, just Beta) one is tonnes of fun!
I like the blurb about the staves. Do you need to have the spells on your class spell list to use them, or can any spellcaster expend charges from and recharge staves? Inquiring Bards wanna know!
I give this preview 2 Merks up. Merk, Merrrrrk!
That's the idea: the spells contained within the staff do not need to be on your known spells list; therefore, staves are great additions to a sorcerer's arsenal. Spells must be on the sorcerer/wizard spell list, yes, but not on your known list (so it's great for sorcerers and bards).
Not only do you use your feats with those spells (Spell Focus Evocation) but you can now recharge them (so cast from them as often as you'd like, as opposed to 3.5, because now, between adventures, you can recharge them at the rate of one charge per day (10 days for a full staff assuming 10 charges).
That's the idea: the spells contained within the staff do not need to be on your known spells list; therefore, staves are great additions to a sorcerer's arsenal. Spells must be on the sorcerer/wizard spell list, yes, but not on your known list (so it's great for sorcerers and bards).
Not only do you use your feats with those spells (Spell Focus Evocation) but you can now recharge them (so cast from them as often as you'd like, as opposed to 3.5, because now, between adventures, you can recharge them at the rate of one charge per day (10 days for a full staff assuming 10 charges).
This is all true, but unless it's been changed, you have to actually be able to cast at least one of the spells on the staff to recharge it (not just on your class spell list).
What happened to Seoni's Varisian Tattoo (evocation) feat?
It wasn't added here because it's not in the book. At least, that's my guess.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
What happened to Seoni's Varisian Tattoo (evocation) feat?
It won't be in the Final Rules, therefore she can't have it. Everything written in the Core Rulebook has to be available to all players equally without them having to buy other supplements.
That and Varisian Tattoo is Golarion specific and PFRPG is meant to be Setting Neutral (other than the inclusion of the Golarion Pantheon).
|
Sorry, adjacent to does not mean 'in the next 5 foot square', it means 'adjacent to', as in, to the left or right of. Otherwise, Tiny or smaller creatures could never be cleaved (as multiple can occupy a 5 foot square). Your logic has 4 pixies in the same square being immune to cleave.
Sorry, "adjacent" has a long history in 3.X of meaning "in the next square". It's more of a rules terminology thing than a pure language issue.
The SRD cover rules:
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall).
Being able to target one enemy per adjacent square with Great Cleave is both fair (even against stacked Tiny foes) and realistic (see Anthony Delonghis' claymore demonstration on Deadliest Warrior: William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu).
So my fears are now confirmed.
Spellcasters are awesome, get cool options and toys in Pathfinder.
Fighters get to swing a sword and basically suck.
Oh well, I had hopes that the promises of a 'fixed' 3.5 would be true...not just a pipe dream.
[...]
I think there are many more who, like you, are disappointed. A lot of people was just waiting/hoping for interactiv attacks (or what you call them). But we don't have the whole picture yet. Perhaps the DC for casting on the defensive have changed or/and perhaps there are new feats that allow melee charecters to use multiple attacks as a standard action, etc.
I don't know. But check out the book when it hits your local bookstore or check out the forum.
interactiv attacks (or what you call them).
Not interactive. That's a buzzword they use for programmes (stories, software, and so on) where you can actively (well, "interactively") change the plot.
You mean iterative. Which means "something characterised by repetition"
interactiv attacks (or what you call them).
Not interactive. That's a buzzword they use for programmes (stories, software, and so on) where you can actively (well, "interactively") change the plot.
You mean iterative. Which means "something characterised by repetition"
Thanx :-)
Sorry, "adjacent" has a long history in 3.X of meaning "in the next square".Not true. In 3.x, "adjacent" has always meant "within 5 feet."
The cover rules you mention tell you how to determine when an adjacent opponent gets cover, but you have to determine whether or not an opponent is adjacent before the cover rules you mention even apply. Those rules depend upon "adjacent," they don't define it.
"Adjacent" is explicitly defined in the melee attack rules from the SRD:
(Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) ...adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
within 5 feet = next to you. As the smalest increment is 5 feet in 3.x
The link you added is by the way not to WoTC, hence not official.
The link you added is by the way not to WoTC, hence not official.
Please don't tell me you're about to argue against the legitimacy of the d20srd.org site. For many people, including the Paizo designers themselves, it's the "go-to" site for SRD rules.
|
|
The link you added is by the way not to WoTC, hence not official.
Fine then, this is from the SRD, it is located on page 6 of the Combat I document under standard actions:
"Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.)"Here is a link to the SRD:
http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/CombatI.rtf
Here is a link to the WotC page that holds the SRD in its entirety:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35
---
d20SRD.org is the 3.5 SRD provided by WotC only prettied up and provided in a convenient hyperlinked format. To say it isn't legitimate is quite silly, considering it has more up-to-date rules than the standard core set of books (D20SRD contains all errata for the three core books whereas the standard core books do not; barring the leather backed ones, of course).
within 5 feet = next to you. As the smalest increment is 5 feet in 3.xSomething within my own square is within 5 feet of me. Even if one accepts the argument that 5 feet is the smallest increment, 0 feet can be expressed in terms of 5-foot increments (it's 0 of them).
yes true. When I got to bed I came to think of tiny creatures. There can be more than on creature in one square so when I couldn't sleep I got up to corect my error but you beat me to it :-)
The text I quoted appears on page 123 of the 3.0 PHB, page 139 of the 3.5 PHB, and page 134 of the Pathfinder Beta.EDIT: Added some direct page references; see also the sections of the WotC SRD quoted in the post right below this one.
Thanx. :-)
Please don't tell me you're about to argue against the legitimacy of the d20srd.org site. For many people, including the Paizo designers themselves, it's the "go-to" site for SRD rules.
The link you added is by the way not to WoTC, hence not official.
Hey I don't know everything.
Hey I don't know everything.But at least you're willing to learn; that more than I can say for some. ;)
Thanx.
But I still say no to Mirror Image and Cleave/Great Cleave.The way I see it, a mirror Image is not another foe that is adjacent to the first. The Image is the same foe. That is, it's just as much part of the foe as an animated shiled or stoneskin or a floating Ioun Stone.
Hey I hit the wizard and only did 9 damage, so I didn't really hit the wizard I hit the stoneskin so now I can cleave and hit the wizard for real?
Hey I hit the wizard and now I can hit his floating Ioun Stone?
...and again that's just my opinion.
Hey I don't know everything.But at least you're willing to learn; that more than I can say for some. ;)Thanx.
But I still say no to Mirror Image and Cleave/Great Cleave.
The way I see it, a mirror Image is not another foe that is adjacent to the first. The Image is the same foe. That is, it's just as much part of the foe as an animated shiled or stoneskin or a floating Ioun Stone.Hey I hit the wizard and only did 9 damage, so I didn't really hit the wizard I hit the stoneskin so now I can cleave and hit the wizard for real?
Hey I hit the wizard and now I can hit his floating Ioun Stone?
...and again that's just my opinion.
Vague terminology still haunts us. Cleave says foe, mirror image says target, some effects say creature...
I figure a high level fighter defeating a wizard's second level spell as a full action is a fair exchange so would judge it works. Likely even if the wording were more clear I would judge it the same because it's only a second level spell. How would this combine with Displacement?
[...] I still say no to Mirror Image and Cleave/Great Cleave.
The way I see it, a mirror Image is not another foe that is adjacent to the first. The Image is the same foe. That is, it's just as much part of the foe as an animated shiled or stoneskin or a floating Ioun Stone.Hey I hit the wizard and only did 9 damage, so I didn't really hit the wizard I hit the stoneskin so now I can cleave and hit the wizard for real?
Hey I hit the wizard and now I can hit his floating Ioun Stone?
...and again that's just my opinion.
Vague terminology still haunts us. Cleave says foe, mirror image says target, some effects say creature...
I figure a high level fighter defeating a wizard's second level spell as a full action is a fair exchange so would judge it works. Likely even if the wording were more clear I would judge it the same because it's only a second level spell. How would this combine with Displacement?
Vague or not I think it's common sence. You're aiming for the wizard. It's the same target, just as an floating Ioun Stone is the same target.
- Wizard casts mirror Image.- Figter hit wizard
- Wizard goes ouch
- Fighter: I hit you, now I cleave and try to hit one of your Images.
- Fighter rolls d20 again: Hey it's a hit - Hurrah. Fighter rolls d4.
- Wizard: No you hit the real me so you didn't hit me. Because you can't hit me twice using cleave or great cleave.
- Fighter: Please Please. I don't want to hit you just destroy all of your images. Can't I just pick one of your Images.
- Wizard: The d4 says no.
Yes, vague terminology still haunts us. So unless Jason helps us out it's GM's call. Some will say yes, some will say no.
I'm like the computor. I say no.
|
Director of Games
|
Alright folks. This issue is getting a bit out of hand. Although I need to take a closer look at the final wordings, my gut is telling me that the images are not adjacent and that they count as the same target, meaning the Cleave would not work here.
Let's all just calm done. No need to get bent out of shape.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Alright folks. This issue is getting a bit out of hand. Although I need to take a closer look at the final wordings, my gut is telling me that the images are not adjacent and that they count as the same target, meaning the Cleave would not work here.
Let's all just calm done. No need to get bent out of shape.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well ,if you cannot Cleave/Great Cleave through all the caster's Mirror Images, you can always Whirlwind Attack them as you want, IMHO...
After all, Whilrwind Attack doesn't say anything about adjacent/not adjacent targets, only 'opponents within reach' - and all those images standing in the same space are 'opponents within reach', as far as I know.
This would bring back some lustre to Whirlwind Attack (again, IMHO).
Alright folks. This issue is getting a bit out of hand. Although I need to take a closer look at the final wordings, my gut is telling me that the images are not adjacent and that they count as the same target, meaning the Cleave would not work here.
Let's all just calm done. No need to get bent out of shape.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thanx. I'll take a cup of tea and cool down. :-) I probably should do my spanish homework insted of spending time getting bent out of shape. LOL
Well ,if you cannot Cleave/Great Cleave through all the caster's Mirror Images, you can always Whirlwind Attack them as you want, IMHO...
After all, Whilrwind Attack doesn't say anything about adjacent/not adjacent targets, only 'opponents within reach' - and all those images standing in the same space are 'opponents within reach', as far as I know.
This would bring back some lustre to Whirlwind Attack (again, IMHO).
Good point. Unless the images counts as the same opponent. But I would say (anyway), whilrwind Attack, yes.
Good point. Unless the images counts as the same opponent. But I would say (anyway), whilrwind Attack, yes.Well ,if you cannot Cleave/Great Cleave through all the caster's Mirror Images, you can always Whirlwind Attack them as you want, IMHO...
After all, Whilrwind Attack doesn't say anything about adjacent/not adjacent targets, only 'opponents within reach' - and all those images standing in the same space are 'opponents within reach', as far as I know.
This would bring back some lustre to Whirlwind Attack (again, IMHO).
Alright folks. This issue is getting a bit out of hand. Although I need to take a closer look at the final wordings, my gut is telling me that the images are not adjacent and that they count as the same target, meaning the Cleave would not work here.
Let's all just calm done. No need to get bent out of shape.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Same means not different...
Nice to see you back Zark hope the homework is going well.
Same means not different...
LOL.
Nice to see you back Zark hope the homework is going well.
Thanx. Hard to focus on homework with the new ranger out. Caster level equal to ranger level –3 made my day (waiting for the paldin).
Now I must get back to my spanish studies or my girlfriend will hurt me ;-)
Alright folks. This issue is getting a bit out of hand. Although I need to take a closer look at the final wordings, my gut is telling me that the images are not adjacent and that they count as the same target, meaning the Cleave would not work here.
I'm still allowing it, and there's nothing you can do against it! Hah, take that! :P
When I got to bed I came to think of tiny creatures.
We really don't need to know what you think of in bed. Really. :D
We really don't need to know what you think of in bed. Really. :D
When I got to bed I came to think of tiny creatures.
Coming in PF: The "petite" size category.
|
|
The way it reads to me is you need that to target a spell you do not know about, otherwise it seems it just zaps the highest level one active.
Kinda like just shooting into a crowd vs targeting the leader. Your gonna get one either way but is it the best one? well if ya dont know what all he has active then maybe not. You can't just say "umm his best buff"
The arcana skill allows you to know what he has active
course I could be wrong
That's the way I read it too. Of course, I am not the end-all expert on the rules (that would be Jason), but that will be the way I am going to play it in my home campaign.
-Lisa
This came up in our SCAP game; CODzilla buffed up, runs in and gets zapped, weakened and immobilized by the weight of his gear.
I think it was Ray of Enfeeblement, or it could have been exhaustion effect.Either way, we don't want to hit him with a full targetted dispel, or get everyone with an area dispel, especially since my focussed Abjurer would likely rip out every friendly buff.
So the question was 'Can we pick out the problem spell from the mass of effects?'.
Everyone had different suggestions; we had:
- only if you saw it cast,
- only if the effect is visible,
- only if you use a detect, and Spellcraft to pick out the school,
- as above, but only if no other effects are from the same school,...
It was one of those situations that stop play, even when everyone was friendly about it. As such, it does need some guidance.
We ended up agreeing that you could pick out an individual effect, as long as you knew the name of the specific spell, whether or not that info was first- or second-hand.
I hated wasting my good high-level dispels on one crappy low-level effect (I recall this one had come from a wand or hench-creature), so I'd persuaded the party to buy the cohorts dispel wands for this purpose.
The weakened PC's cohort came running round the corner, hadn't seen the initial casting, but was able to deal with it next round, after I shouted my diagnosis to her.
|
|
On the subject of identifying spells, one thing I find odd is the blanket DC, based solely on spell level.
Is there grounds for raising or lowering the DC, for those spells with more obvious or subtle effects?
A silent or still spell, or one with no focus or materials, should be harder to identify than one for which the caster shouts, gesticulates and pulls things from his pouches.
An enemy may be taking no damage from your Fire or cold spells, but it should be a lot easier to realise they have Fire Shield running, than Resist Energy.
If your ally drops, without going over to him, you won't know if he's dead, KO, asleep, or paralysed.