Why is applying a Spell Failure Chance unacceptable to the community?


General Discussion (Prerelease)

51 to 100 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Jason S wrote:


1) The chance to fail has increased at least 20%. You can color it anyway you want, a 20% reduction in power is huge. Any class would not like to be nerfed by 20%.

You're the one who's doing the colouring here: You say that because the failure chance of casting defensively has decreased by 20%, the class now has 20% less power.

That is simply not true. If the failure chance applied all the time, it would be true, but it doesn't. You can stay away from enemies, you can go away from enemies, you can cast, anyway and hope for the best.....


Quote:
Sure, but it's a once and done, a standard fighter attack can be done all day. That's the point, two chances at failure for something that can only be done once isn't balanced with an attack that can be done all day. But it's ok, the notion this new rule is even slightly "fair" carries no weight with me.

You want to put spells and attacks on the same level. For as long as I can remember, spells weren't a good idea when you were involved in melee combat.

Hold person is a very effective spell that removes an enemy from the combat outright. In normal conditions, it has one chance of failure, the saving throw.

It is considerably more powerful than a fighter's attack at that level, except for one situation: if it is cast in close range to a melee combatant.

If you remove that second exceptional chance for failure, you remove one of the only things that makes the non-caster classes viable.

What is the problem here? This isn't a new rule! All they did was jack up the DC on what had become a totally irrelevant waste-of-time roll, and give all casters back some skill points.

Maybe I'm not bothered because I was already playing like this, in 3.5 and throughout the playtest. I have used exactly the new Pathfinder rule. Guess what? It doesn't even come up 99% of the time, and when it does, the caster usually makes their roll.

The wizard in my playtest is still hugely effective, but he's wary of being surrounded and keeps his distance from the furball. Which is exactly how I want things to be, as GM. If casters don't need bodyguards to run interference, the entire game might as well be deathmatches between archmages and the rulebook could be a hell of a lot slimmer.


Excuse me, is that the famous thread about casters being worried about being in melee and losing spells because of being in melee?

Several bits of advice for the caster:
Leave melee range.
Start caring for your friendly melee brutes.
Learn to love tactical thinking instead of self-buffing.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. And the thousand CoDzillas screamed...


ruemere wrote:

Excuse me, is that the famous thread about casters being worried about being in melee and losing spells because of being in melee?

Several bits of advice for the caster:
Leave melee range.
Start caring for your friendly melee brutes.
Learn to love tactical thinking instead of self-buffing.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. And the thousand CoDzillas screamed...

Or you know, just take combat casting and smile smugly while doing a point blank meteor swarm...

Or if you are a CoDzilla just rely on that great AC you got.

And no it isn't that thread.

This thread is founded on a flawed premise that somehow the game doesn't include a way for spell casters to lose spells and people's inability to accept spells should be lost.

Both of which are not true. The game does have ways for people to lose spells, and people do accept this is a normal part of the game that happens sometimes.

If you want the "Cry about casting in melee" thread try looking in the cleric preview thread that's going on there.

Truthfully if the fighter doesn't want me casting heal to keep his butt up in combat that's no biggie to me: I'll just summon a Solar.

Liberty's Edge

I don't think for one second that the arguement being made is that spells shouldn't be lost or that the game doesn't provide a method for that. I think the arguement is that the game provides a few too many methods for that, in comparison with comparable powers.

While I can see how some of you feel that staying out of melee range should be the caster's primary role (which IS something I agree with for arcane casters, although the divine types are designed for that sort of thing), it's not always possible, what with the fact that the first thing anybody of any tactical sense would do is flatten them just to cut down on numbers, and their lack of armor and HPs should be enough of a deterrent to them getting that close anyway. Losing a spell when hit (totally from memory) just adds insult to injury, especially at low levels. (Now, being unable to cast it that round? That makes more sense and seems more fair to me than saying "Oops, sorry, but you lost your most valuable resource and the reason these melee types keep you around.")

I know lots of you see spells as being inherently more powerful than attacks. My experience with that isn't the case at all. Between attacks of opportunity, feats in the core rules like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, and decent STR bonuses, my fighters ALWAYS outperform the mages on damage. And they can do it all day long. If the only option that the arcanists have to contribute to the group's success or failure in an encounter is to buff the melee combatants, or stand back and hope to get a shot in with a useful spell (firing into melee, no less!), then the game's just less fun.

I'm still hoping we can get a feat or something added in in a future supplement to modify the new concentration rules or something. Otherwise, feats like Mage-Killer (which cancels out the ability to cast defensively as an option for casters at all, which, coincidentally, makes Combat Casting fairly useless as well) and Step Up make the only reasonable option for a caster against melee opponents being scry-and-die, and NOBODY wants that.

In conclusion, by all means, keep the rules in the game for losing spells... but balance them out better. Limit the ways that it can happen. Above all, make it rare enough that it's the equivalent of fumbling and breaking a weapon for a melee caster.


This thread is getting side-tracked into Casting Defensively.

That was not what the OP was talking about. Or at least, it wasn't the only thing he was talking about.

I get it.

Casters can do with a single spell what it might take a fighter a dozen rounds of melee to achieve.

In return, they can only do it a few times each day, but a fighter can actually go ahead and fight for dozens of rounds in multiple fights if he needs to.

A few times each day?

Yes, that's true, at all levels, because even a wizard with 30 spells prepared will have some out-of-combat utility. What's left will be a couple spells of his highest level, a few spells of the level below that, and a few below that - by the time you get any lower, whatever he has prepared really won't change a level-appropriate encounter very much anyway.

Fughermore, most spells can be fully resisted and/or fully saved against - many of them can be both.

That amounts to lots of ways a caster can do everything exactly right and still end up wasting his whole round getting ZERO benefit - and he loses the spell so he cannot simply try again next round.

Still, when it works, it can be spectacular. Far more spectacular than simply hitting a bad guy a couple times with a sword.

This is pretty closely balanced: casters have more power but fewer chances to use it and their power can more easily be negated.

The balance breaks down somewhat at the highest pre-epic levels as the power of casters grows faster than the power of meleers, but that's a different topic.

So we (mostly) have a fairly good balance.

The OP asked why we oppose "applying a spell failure chance".

I take this to mean "applying a NEW spell failure chance that goes above and beyond the balance we already have."

I've stated my reasons already, reasons that are predicated upon any new spell failure chances (not just for Casting Defensively, but for anything) tipping the balance against casters.

Worse, that makes playing caster less fun.

Worse still, having uhnappy and/or ineffective casters makes it less fun for everyone at the table, even the DM.

For all that, I strongly advocate leaving the balance as it is - we should not apply any NEW spell failure chances that go above and beyond the balance we already have.

Shadow Lodge

I'll second that.


As has already been mentioned there are many ways to make spells not work. It seems the majority of us think the spell failure idea is bogus. I have not read every post, but if you are having issues with casters in your games could you list them so we can find strategies to help?
One assumption I do remember is that the group get to rest without consequence. I have never been under a DM where I get to rest at will without being attacked. That is part of the reason why my group only rest when they have no other choice, and they make sure not to cast spells if the noncasters already have the fight pretty well in hand.

PS: If I was up against an enemy that allowed me to setup camp in their home, and did nothing about it ever, then I would take advantage of it also.

Shadow Lodge

I think that the problem comes from Dm's allowing the party to do it, rather than the party trying to camp whenever. What I mean is, it is okay for them to try it. That doesn't mean they should always be able to. First, most dungeons have built in random encounter probabilities, per hour. They may try to rest, get attacked by a minor thing, try to rest, get attacked 2 hours later, etc. . . until they get to the point that their time is up. Especially as everyone will need their portion of 8 hours of sleep.
"okay guys, youv'e been here over 24 hours" No one has gotten a good enough rest because you just keep getting disturbed. Everyone is now exhausted, your out of water, Arcane casters are just not refreshed, Divine Casters, you can take your extra hour to meditate, but your still exhausted and your all going to start dipping into dehydration if you don't get going".

Now, not every time. Especially if they put some really good prep into finding a hidden little rest place. But it should be often enough that the party realizes that it is not a prefered option to try behind enemy lines.

Also, Divine casters they have a designated time of day that they regain spells. In my experience, that is typically morning. So while the Wizard can potentually rest 8 hours in a dungeon, than regain spells, if it is only after an hour of exploration, the Cleric, Druid, Paladin, etc. . . must essentually rest and wait 22 hrs.


Beckett wrote:
the Wizard can potentually rest 8 hours in a dungeon, than regain spells, if it is only after an hour of exploration

Oh really?

I am pretty sure the top of the wizard chart says "Spells per Day" not "Spells 3x per Day if you rest often enough".

Now while I don't see anywhere that specifically says "you cannot rest 8 hours and then prepare spells more than once per day", it is pretty clear by "Spells per day" and by the frequent references to wizards' daily spell allotment, that the wizard may only prepare his "Spells per Day" once per day.

(it does say he can leave some slots unprepared, then prepare those empty slots later, but that rule also says he cannot replace a prepared slot with a different spell nor can he fill an empty slot that is empty because he cast a spell from that slot today).

All of that points to just one daily use for each slot, but more flexibility about when the wizard can or must fill each slot.

So no, if the party rests, prepares spells, then enters the dungeon, and an hour later the cleric and the wizard are both out of spells, neither of them can go rest for 8 hours - they both need to rest for 23 hours to replenish their spells.

Shadow Lodge

Nope. Arcane casters can get their spells back after 8 hours of rest, but more than once in a 24 hour day. Most divine casters can not, though, but only because they have a set prayer time each day. Favored souls and similar classes are exceptions.

Psionic classes work that way, too.


Beckett wrote:

Nope. Arcane casters can get their spells back after 8 hours of rest, but more than once in a 24 hour day. Most divine casters can not, though, but only because they have a set prayer time each day. Favored souls and similar classes are exceptions.

Psionic classes work that way, too.

I'm afraid I'm going to disbelieve this one unless you can show me this rule in writing.

Care to cite a page number, maybe post a qoute?


Beckett wrote:
Nope. Arcane casters can get their spells back after 8 hours of rest, but more than once in a 24 hour day. Most divine casters can not, though, but only because they have a set prayer time each day.

Are you referring to the absence in 3.5 of a clearly defined statement that you cannot take more than one 8 hour rest per day? It might be there, but it's not something that I can readily locate. Likely it's left up to the DM.

Whatever the case, vancian limits are problematical in a particular way. The cost of expending a spell-slot is not paid during the use of that resource, but only on a later occasion when you want to use it and it isn't available.

Deferred costs in any game system encourage players to exploit them. Most typically by finding a way not to pay the cost, or to diminish the cost by paying it when it doesn't matter so much. From a designability standpoint, that means it is not possible to know the price paid for a given cast.

That being so, a correction - that taken by 4th - is to prevent costs being deferred: i.e. to ensure all costs are paid within the same frame of reference.

-vk


DM_Blake wrote:
Beckett wrote:

Nope. Arcane casters can get their spells back after 8 hours of rest, but more than once in a 24 hour day. Most divine casters can not, though, but only because they have a set prayer time each day. Favored souls and similar classes are exceptions.

Psionic classes work that way, too.

I'm afraid I'm going to disbelieve this one unless you can show me this rule in writing.

Care to cite a page number, maybe post a qoute?

Let me ask for clarification:

Are you saying you run in a "you can only do it if the rule exists" style?


DM_Blake wrote:
Beckett wrote:

Nope. Arcane casters can get their spells back after 8 hours of rest, but more than once in a 24 hour day. Most divine casters can not, though, but only because they have a set prayer time each day. Favored souls and similar classes are exceptions.

Psionic classes work that way, too.

I'm afraid I'm going to disbelieve this one unless you can show me this rule in writing.

Care to cite a page number, maybe post a qoute?

Pathfinder BETA,page 165 - there is a similar quote in 3.5 SRD wrote:
Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions: If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit.

Daily limit on spells is defined as "base allotment of spells" (quotes by me) minus "[spells] cast within the last 8 hours". In other words, if the wizard has cast any spell more than 8 hours ago, it does not count toward the limit, i.e. the slot can be assigned to new spell.

Please, note also that term "daily" is not equal to "once per 24 hours period". Frankly, it would be quite a choir to remember 24 hour limit for each slot used up.

Regards,
Ruemere


Abraham spalding wrote:
ruemere wrote:

Excuse me, is that the famous thread about casters being worried about being in melee and losing spells because of being in melee?

Several bits of advice for the caster:
Leave melee range.
Start caring for your friendly melee brutes.
Learn to love tactical thinking instead of self-buffing.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. And the thousand CoDzillas screamed...

Or you know, just take combat casting and smile smugly while doing a point blank meteor swarm...

There are many ways to achieve it. The point is that Combat Casting is not a given now.

Quote:
Or if you are a CoDzilla just rely on that great AC you got.

CMB. No need to worry about AC if you can use a maneuver to force a Concentration check via successful CM.

Still, if the Fighter cannot land a hit, it's fine. Everyone needs to win from time to time.

Quote:

And no it isn't that thread.

This thread is founded on a flawed premise that somehow the game doesn't include a way for spell casters to lose spells and people's inability to accept spells should be lost.

Both of which are not true. The game does have ways for people to lose spells, and people do accept this is a normal part of the game that happens sometimes.

If you want the "Cry about casting in melee" thread try looking in the cleric preview thread that's going on there.

Truthfully if the fighter doesn't want me casting heal to keep his butt up in combat that's no biggie to me: I'll just summon a Solar.

Pretty high level summon, you know :). It's not like a majority of characters are playing at that level - myself, I was always fond of Earth Elementals and their wonderful grapples.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. The point of mine was: there is no reason to gripe about this as we do not see the whole picture yet. All we know is that Fighters are somewhat less underpriviledged as before. Hence, threads as these are pointless.


ruemere wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Beckett wrote:

Nope. Arcane casters can get their spells back after 8 hours of rest, but more than once in a 24 hour day. Most divine casters can not, though, but only because they have a set prayer time each day. Favored souls and similar classes are exceptions.

Psionic classes work that way, too.

I'm afraid I'm going to disbelieve this one unless you can show me this rule in writing.

Care to cite a page number, maybe post a qoute?

Pathfinder BETA,page 165 - there is a similar quote in 3.5 SRD wrote:
Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions: If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit.

Daily limit on spells is defined as "base allotment of spells" (quotes by me) minus "[spells] cast within the last 8 hours". In other words, if the wizard has cast any spell more than 8 hours ago, it does not count toward the limit, i.e. the slot can be assigned to new spell.

Please, note also that term "daily" is not equal to "once per 24 hours period". Frankly, it would be quite a choir to remember 24 hour limit for each slot used up.

Regards,
Ruemere

You're taking that quote entirely out of context.

That quote about 8 hours refers only to preparing spells after your rest was interrupted.

So if a mage is out of spells and goes to sleep for 8 hours (at night) and wakes up in the morning (24 hours since he prepared spells yesterday), he can now prepare all his spell slots - it's a new day.

But if, during that night, he gets attacked and has to fight, his rest is interrupted. He now needs one extra hour of rest before he can prepare his spells.

If during that interruption, he casts 2nd level spells, then he wakes up a few hours later rested and ready to prepare, he can prepare all of his spells except the two 2nd level spells because those are the two spells he has cast within 8 hours prior to waking up rested.

OK, OK, maybe you think I am interpreting that wrong.

I'm not, but I'll grant you the possibility.

So let me ask this:

We know the rules say 8 hours of sleep/rest before[/b] preparing spells - that's a given, right?

So how is it possible that the caster [i]even cast any spells at all while he was sleeping or resting?

The quote says you can't prepare any spells you cast in the last 8 hours, but if you are preparing spells, that means the last 8 hours you were resting, not spellcasting, right?

No, this rule only applies to preparing spells after your 8-hour rest was interrupted.

In all other ways, like resting in the middle of the afternoon, your Spells per Day limit is truly a daily limit.


DM_Blake wrote:
The quote says you can't prepare any spells you cast in the last 8 hours, but if you are preparing spells, that means the last 8 hours you were resting, not spellcasting, right?

Not necessarily.

d2osrd wrote:

Rest

To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.

So it is possible to have cast spells only 1 hour before re-memorizing, and still after the required rest period.

Or, you know: here.


vonklaude wrote:

Vancian limits are problematical in a particular way. The cost of expending a spell-slot is not paid during the use of that resource, but only on a later occasion when you want to use it and it isn't available.

Deferred costs in any game system encourage players to exploit them. Most typically by finding a way not to pay the cost, or to diminish the cost by paying it when it doesn't matter so much. From a designability standpoint, that means it is not possible to know the price paid for a given cast.

That being so, a correction - that taken by 4th - is to prevent costs being deferred: i.e. to ensure all costs are paid within the same frame of reference.

Hence it is not inappropriate to look for other costs, such as a BCS; and we should not conveniently overlook all the spells that have no saving throw (summons, target selfs, buffs, some attack spells) and the many casts that are made without fear of distraction.

Quoting myself to draw attention to the point. Grrr...

-vk

Shadow Lodge

vonklaude wrote:
vonklaude wrote:

Vancian limits are problematical in a particular way. The cost of expending a spell-slot is not paid during the use of that resource, but only on a later occasion when you want to use it and it isn't available.

Deferred costs in any game system encourage players to exploit them. Most typically by finding a way not to pay the cost, or to diminish the cost by paying it when it doesn't matter so much. From a designability standpoint, that means it is not possible to know the price paid for a given cast.

That being so, a correction - that taken by 4th - is to prevent costs being deferred: i.e. to ensure all costs are paid within the same frame of reference.

Hence it is not inappropriate to look for other costs, such as a BCS; and we should not conveniently overlook all the spells that have no saving throw (summons, target selfs, buffs, some attack spells) and the many casts that are made without fear of distraction.

Quoting myself to draw attention to the point. Grrr...

-vk

What "costs" are you refering to, here?

Shadow Lodge

Beckett wrote:
Nope. Arcane casters can get their spells back after 8 hours of rest, but more than once in a 24 hour day. . .
DM_Blake wrote:


Care to cite a page number, maybe post a qoute?

No, not off the top of my head. I would suggest doing a search through the WotC FAQ. Ill try to dig it up, but have limited resources at work.

Shadow Lodge

You asked and here you are. Main 3.5 FAQ, page 77, top right

Can you rest for 8 hours more than once a day? For
example, could I cast a spell that lasts for the entire day,
then rest, and then do it again?

While this is technically within the rules, the Sage
nevertheless would support any Dungeon Master that
disallowed it. Ultimately, it comes down to the DM’s vision of
how magic works in her campaign.


Beckett wrote:

You asked and here you are. Main 3.5 FAQ, page 77, top right

Can you rest for 8 hours more than once a day? For
example, could I cast a spell that lasts for the entire day,
then rest, and then do it again?

While this is technically within the rules, the Sage
nevertheless would support any Dungeon Master that
disallowed it. Ultimately, it comes down to the DM’s vision of
how magic works in her campaign.

Yep,

I remember reading that, and as a GM, saying 'Oh h*ll'. However, after thinking it over, it does kind of make sense. Arcane spell casters are channeling natural magic through themselves. Their body needs to recover from casting the spells, so lots of rest tends to equal lots of magic. However, I'd probably do something like imposing con penalties for doing it for long periods of time (IE: 2-3 months straight of double day pumps = -2 con, permanent). They're basically just sleeping and casting, bad for the body. A cleric is utilizing a reserve of divine favor, same as a druid, so they are limited to how much divine energy is given to them, they aren't channeling it (although, a Favored Soul doesn't get his divine energy from a god, he channels it instead, so theoretically, they could double pump). Divine casters are sort of hamstrung. They have to rest, and they only get what their god gives them in the morning.

I actually started doing partial recoveries for arcane spell casters (and favored souls) in my campaign. If they rest 4 hours, they get half their spell point pool the next day (I use spell points in my games). If they get 6 hours, they get 3/4 the next day. Now that I'm thinking about it, I might just negate the rest required for divine types that pray as a balancing factor. They have to pray at the set time, they get a well of divine energy from their god, and then they have to make it last until the next time they pray. That balances it out more.

Shadow Lodge

Actually, Clerics don't have to rest. A clear refreshed mind is not required for most Divine Casters, (Favored Souls do). They only have to meat the proper time of day requirement, then have a quite hour of meditation. That is the trade off.

Arcane Casters + Favored Souls: Any number of times after an 8 hour rest.

Divine Casters: Only at a specific time once a day, but doesn't require prior rest.

Both can option to leave spell slots unprepaired, and take 15 mins (I think) later to prepair those open spell slots, but only if they meet the normal requirements and leave those slots open for that reason.


Beckett wrote:

Actually, Clerics don't have to rest. A clear refreshed mind is not required for most Divine Casters, (Favored Souls do). They only have to meat the proper time of day requirement, then have a quite hour of meditation. That is the trade off.

Arcane Casters + Favored Souls: Any number of times after an 8 hour rest.

Divine Casters: Only at a specific time once a day, but doesn't require prior rest.

Both can option to leave spell slots unprepaired, and take 15 mins (I think) later to prepair those open spell slots, but only if they meet the normal requirements and leave those slots open for that reason.

Gah,

I just went and reread that. Do you know our group has been doing that wrong for 5+ years?

Not sure about the '15 minutes later in the day' thing though, never read that anywhere.


Disenchanter wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
The quote says you can't prepare any spells you cast in the last 8 hours, but if you are preparing spells, that means the last 8 hours you were resting, not spellcasting, right?

Not necessarily.

d2osrd wrote:

Rest

To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.

So it is possible to have cast spells only 1 hour before re-memorizing, and still after the required rest period.

Or, you know: here.

Silly, I was defending that very point - I even quoted the quoting of it in my previous post, as you pointed out.

I guess I failed to make myself clear.

My point is, for those saying the rules allow multiple rest/prepare opportunities in a single day for wizards, that is manifestly denied by the two quotes I posted.

If a wizard needs 8 hours of rest to prepare, but he can only prepare spells he did not cast during the last 8 hours, well, then since he was resting for those 8 hours he wasn't casting, so this would be a pointless rule in that case.

So, the rule is only meaningful given that a wizard's rest can be interrupted, in which case he adds 1 hour for each interruption. At the end of all those hours, 8, 9, 10, whatever (depending on how many interruptions there are), he can finally prepare spells, but he cannot prepare any slots he used during those interruptions (more specifically, during the previous 8 hours).

This would mean that during at least one of those interruptions the wizard casts some spells that he had previously prepared (he hasn't gotten enough rest to prepare his new spells yet). Then he finishes his rest and finally prepares spells, but not in the slots that he used during that/those interruption(s).

That's all this rule means.

So for anyone pointing at this rule as proof that a wizard can rest, prepare, then immediately rest agin for just 8 hours and prepare again, those people are taking the rule out of context.

That's all I was saying regarding this rule.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

mdt wrote:
Beckett wrote:

Actually, Clerics don't have to rest. A clear refreshed mind is not required for most Divine Casters, (Favored Souls do). They only have to meat the proper time of day requirement, then have a quite hour of meditation. That is the trade off.

Arcane Casters + Favored Souls: Any number of times after an 8 hour rest.

Divine Casters: Only at a specific time once a day, but doesn't require prior rest.

Both can option to leave spell slots unprepaired, and take 15 mins (I think) later to prepair those open spell slots, but only if they meet the normal requirements and leave those slots open for that reason.

Gah,

I just went and reread that. Do you know our group has been doing that wrong for 5+ years?

Not sure about the '15 minutes later in the day' thing though, never read that anywhere.

I know I read in the Beta, didn't bother at that time to check it in the SRD or PHB, but I can confirm it exists in the Beta.


DM_Blake wrote:
That's all I was saying regarding this rule.

I'm failing to understand how the resting / interrupting rule prevents casters from resting more than once a day...

For ease, let's say the Wizard started resting at the start of the day.

After 8 hours, said Wizard prepares all spells.

How does the resting / interruptions rule prevent the Wizard from resting another 8 hours and preparing again, all within the same day?

Shadow Lodge

It is true. If you prepair spells, you can leave spell slots open. That means they don't have any spells in them and you can't use them for anything.

However, if at some later time, you can fill them with a spell you might need. Because it takes 15 mins at least, it is rarely useful except were you have time, and only a specific spell effect will do. Count Badass Strahd did this often as an in game reason to always be prepaired for the pc's.

Or are you refering to 15 min workday? That is just a nonliteral term meaning as soon as the casters are out of good spells, time for entire party to rest. Generally it is because those casters don't use their spells very wisely, and don't have them when they need them, so rest to get them back.

Shadow Lodge

Here's the deal with not being able to cast a spell slot used 8 hours before. It is intended to prevent a wizard (or anyone) from having an previous open spell, resting 8 hours, casting that spell, then memorizing all their spells again.

So lets say im a 15th level wizard. The adventuring day is over, we are all resting, and I still have a mage armor spell ready. So I sleep my 8 hours, and when I wake up, I only have whatever spells I had prepaired last night. So I cast my mage armor now, so +4 ac for 15 hours, then I sit down and study my spellbook for an hour to get all my spells back, but still have a free mage armor.

That's why it isn't allowed.

I want to point something out here. It is not broken, being able to rest more than once a day. In fact it aplies to any and all abilities usable per day. That includes monsters with a spell like ability, a monks stunning fist. Rogue talents that are 1 a day, smite evil, rage, magic items, etc . . .


Beckett wrote:

You asked and here you are. Main 3.5 FAQ, page 77, top right

Can you rest for 8 hours more than once a day? For
example, could I cast a spell that lasts for the entire day,
then rest, and then do it again?

While this is technically within the rules, the Sage
nevertheless would support any Dungeon Master that
disallowed it. Ultimately, it comes down to the DM’s vision of
how magic works in her campaign.

I have to admit, I didn't expect that.

Basically, this says that even though your cleric has the same number of slots my wizard has, you can only fill your slots 7 times in a week, while I can fill mine 18 times this week. I can cast every one of my spell slots 18 times this week and you can only cast yours 7 times at most.

That's balance?

Further, it contradicts everything in the book. Everything.

In the wizard class itself, I find these phrases:

"a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day."
"His base daily spell allotment is given on Table 4–14."
"In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Intelligence score."
"Spells per Day" - right at the top of the class chart.

And under the Magic section I find:

"She can prepare the same spell more than once, but each preparation counts as one spell toward her daily limit."
"When she prepares spells for the coming day"
"count against her daily limit"
"a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day"
"Until she prepares spells from her spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that she already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used."
"When preparing spells for the day"

And the big winner:

"When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime."

This final sentence says:
1. When preparing spells for the day
2. Some slots can be left unprepared
3. The wizard can fill these and only these slots later "during that day"
4. The wizard cannot "fill a slot that is empty because she has csst a spell" that day.

It's all very clear.

Going back to the FAQ, I begin to wonder if the answer is not pertaining to casting a daily spell, then resting, then casting it again, which would absolutely be valid if, say, the wizard cast the first one before bedtime, rested 8 hours, prepared it again, then cast it right away - he would still have nearly 16 hours left on the first one when the second one comes into effect.

I think the guy who wrote this answer was thinking of it this way, and was missing the bigger picture that his answer would mistakenly be taken to mean that a wizard could rest and prepare everything more than once per day.

I further support this assumption because the answer is not class-specific. The question could be pertaining to clerics as easily as it can pertain to wizards, but on the previous page the FAQ makes it very clear that a cleric cannot prepare spells more than once per day.

Which means the FAQ contradicts itself - so something in the FAQ must be wrong or this contradiction could not exist.

Hence my interpretation.

Sure, I could be wrong on that.

But I think the contradiction in the FAQ is very damning evidence that the FAQ contains a mistake here somewhere.

The FAQ even says "spontaneous divine spellcasters ready spells each day just as sorcerers do" - even the FAQ supports arcane castes (sorcerers) only preparing spells once per day - surely the FAQ never meant to give wizards more than 2x the number of spells that everyone else gets?

Given that the FAQ contains mistakes on this subject, and therefore is clearly flawed, and the the one quote in question is actually answering two questions, and answering them poorly at that, and further given that this misinterpretation from the FAQ completely defies every single thing written in the SRD or the Pathfinder BETA, and further given that this misinterpretation from the FAQ completely destroys balance between the core spellcasting classes, I cannot accept this as the only definitive source for allowing wizards to prepare the same spell slot more than once in a 24-hour period.

Can anyone find anything else to back this up?


Disenchanter wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
That's all I was saying regarding this rule.

I'm failing to understand how the resting / interrupting rule prevents casters from resting more than once a day...

For ease, let's say the Wizard started resting at the start of the day.

After 8 hours, said Wizard prepares all spells.

How does the resting / interruptions rule prevent the Wizard from resting another 8 hours and preparing again, all within the same day?

It doesn't.

This "Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions" rule doesn't prevent any other rule.

It simply clarifies the previous rule, the one regarding a wizard's rest being interrupted.

I'm only saying that this rule doesn't prove or disprove whether wizards can prepare spells more than once because this rule is not about the daily limit of preparing spells at all.

Basically, all I am saying disregard this rule when deciding how many times a day a wizard can prepare spells because it doesn't apply to that decision.

Shadow Lodge

It does if you understand that day does not mean literal 24hour day, but rather the time between rests.


Beckett wrote:
It does if you understand that day does not mean literal 24hour day, but rather the time between rests.

I am so going to use this with my boss at work.

From now on, I will define day as the time between my coffee breaks.


DM_Blake wrote:


Further, it contradicts everything in the book. Everything.

In the wizard class itself, I find these phrases:

"a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day."
"His base daily spell allotment is given on Table 4–14."
"In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Intelligence score."
"Spells per Day" - right at the top of the class chart.

And under the Magic section I find:

"She can prepare the same spell more than once, but each preparation counts as one spell toward her daily limit."
"When she prepares spells for the coming day"
"count against her daily limit"
"a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day"
"Until she prepares spells from her spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that she already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used."
"When preparing spells for the day"

You're being way too literal. Is there something about a character who needs rest that goes 'ding' to indicate that he's ready to prep up the spells? Not really. Clerics and druids have something along those lines but the others don't. They just assume that the character puts in a full day's work, gets a good night's sleep, and does it again. But it really doesn't mean that it's specifically a 24 hour day - it fundamentally has always meant, from 1e on, that the character has basically gotten a full amount of rest at some point, and is once again ready to fill up.


Bill Dunn wrote:
You're being way too literal. Is there something about a character who needs rest that goes 'ding' to indicate that he's ready to prep up the spells? Not really. Clerics and druids have something along those lines but the others don't. They just assume that the character puts in a full day's work, gets a good night's sleep, and does it again. But it really doesn't mean that it's specifically a 24 hour day - it fundamentally has always meant, from 1e on, that the character has basically gotten a full amount of rest at some point, and is once again ready to fill up.

Maybe I am.

Ever sit in a court of law?

Those lawyers discuss laws (rules of life) with the Judge. They are very literal, pointing out every phrase, every word, every comma, every white space on the page if they have to.

I'm not trying to be that literal here.

But we are discussing rules.

Every casting class in the book only gets to prepare their spell slots once per day. Every class.

If the game designers wanted wizards to be the priveliged ones who could break this rule, who could ignore game balance and ingore common sense and ingore the printed rules in the book, they would have printed something, somewhere that says so.

They didn't.

Further, all their wording suggests they are limited to once/day just like the other classes. All of it.

One contradicting and mistinterpreted passage in a FAQ that even contradicts itself regarding this very rule is hard to accept as the single point of contradiction to the massive preponderance of evidence it mistkenly seems to contradict.

It's hard to discuss rules without being literal. It's hard to define "too literal" when discussing rules.

We can't discuss them from beliefs, or from feelings, or from guesswork. If we do, we had better clearly label our statements as stemming from such subjective viewpoints.

We have to be literal.

And the SRD and Pathfinder BETA quite literally defend the once/day ruling very well, and quite literally contain zero evidence to support a multiple/day viewpoint.

Shadow Lodge

Have fun with that.

It is true in the D&D worlds were planes don't have time flow. Unless it is refering to a specific, like time of day for cleric, when it says day, it means a period of time. Ill see what I can find for that, but it will probably take a little more time than the last one.

Shadow Lodge

I want to point out that paizo did the sages advice that became the WotC FAQ.

Your also comming of as very desperate for what you believe. This stuff is in the PHB and DMG, it is just clarified in the FAQ or "rules of the game".


Beckett wrote:

I want to point out that paizo did the sages advice that became the WotC FAQ.

Your also comming of as very desperate for what you believe. This stuff is in the PHB and DMG, it is just clarified in the FAQ or "rules of the game".

I'm sorry if I seem desperate. Not my intent, as I see no need for desperation.

I can point to 10 places in the book that specifically use the word "day" or a derivation thereof.

I can only point to one place in a self-contradicting FAQ where it tried to answer two questions at once and did a poor job of answering either, in the process contredicting other info in the same FAQ and contradicting that preponderance of data in the core book.

I also apply basic logic, and can find no reason to give one class a special benefit that no other class gets without specifically saying so in black or white - in that core book. I cannot believe the intent was to give that favoritism to wizards but nobody thought to print it in the wizard rules.

I also apply simple reason and cannot find a shred of game balance allowing one class, arguably the most powerful core class in the game, certainly the most rampantly destructive core class in the game, such a hugely imbalancing class feature that offers it 2.5x as much power as it already has.

For all that, I find no reason to feel desperate.

Even if someone can provide a more compelling arguement than a single sentence in a self-cotradicting and evidently misinterpreted FAQ, even if someone can provide concrete incontrovertible proof that the game design inends to give this advantage to wizards, I can simply houserule it away.

I'm playing a wizard in my fallback campaign (the one we play when our DM is unavailable or unprepared for our main campaign) and I would be the first player to jump up on the table and shout for logic, fairness, and balance if any other player or the DM tried to implement this misinterpretation, even though I would be the only beneficiary of the rule.


DM_Blake wrote:
Beckett wrote:

I want to point out that paizo did the sages advice that became the WotC FAQ.

Your also comming of as very desperate for what you believe. This stuff is in the PHB and DMG, it is just clarified in the FAQ or "rules of the game".

I'm sorry if I seem desperate. Not my intent, as I see no need for desperation.

I can point to 10 places in the book that specifically use the word "day" or a derivation thereof.

I can only point to one place in a self-contradicting FAQ where it tried to answer two questions at once and did a poor job of answering either, in the process contredicting other info in the same FAQ and contradicting that preponderance of data in the core book.

I also apply basic logic, and can find no reason to give one class a special benefit that no other class gets without specifically saying so in black or white - in that core book. I cannot believe the intent was to give that favoritism to wizards but nobody thought to print it in the wizard rules.

I also apply simple reason and cannot find a shred of game balance allowing one class, arguably the most powerful core class in the game, certainly the most rampantly destructive core class in the game, such a hugely imbalancing class feature that offers it 2.5x as much power as it already has.

For all that, I find no reason to feel desperate.

Even if someone can provide a more compelling arguement than a single sentence in a self-cotradicting and evidently misinterpreted FAQ, even if someone can provide concrete incontrovertible proof that the game design inends to give this advantage to wizards, I can simply houserule it away.

I'm playing a wizard in my fallback campaign (the one we play when our DM is unavailable or unprepared for our main campaign) and I would be the first player to jump up on the table and shout for logic, fairness, and balance if any other player or the DM tried to implement this misinterpretation, even though I would be the only beneficiary of the rule.

It was assumed that you will adventure for 8 hours a day, rest for 8 hours, and have 8 hours of downtime. It is true that any spells cast within the last 8 hours count against the daily limit even if the caster rest, but as long as 8 hours have passed the wizard can renew his/her spells.


DM_Blake wrote:
It doesn't.

Ahh.... Then that is all on me.

When ruemere posted the rule in support of resting more than once a day, I took it as meant that since it didn't mention anything that suggested you could rest only once per "day" (defined how you wish).

I then took your breakdown of the rule as an illustration of how the rule supported your stance. Simply because stating the rule neither supports or denies multiple rests a "day" would have been sufficient.

My mistake on that one.

DM_Blake wrote:
I also apply basic logic, and can find no reason to give one class a special benefit that no other class gets without specifically saying so in black or white - in that core book. I cannot believe the intent was to give that favoritism to wizards but nobody thought to print it in the wizard rules.

I think that is because you have expectations that don't quite jive with (inferred) design goals.

You seem to be trying to look at Divine and Arcane casters as equal. (There isn't anything inherently wrong with that, just it doesn't fit with what has been seen in D&D)

I'm not saying the following makes Wizards and Clerics (for example) balanced, but it goes a long way towards "balancing" those classes from the perceived imbalances.

Wizards:
- had to maintain spell books
- had to pay to add most spells to their spell book
- could "nova" damn near 3 times per day

Clerics:
- received full access to every spell per level
- didn't have to maintain the source of their spells
- could only replenish once per day

Also it makes the two types of magic more distinct, rather than mechanical copies of each other with different flavor text.

Again, I'm not suggesting your take is wrong (it is a legitimate take for a game system), just that it doesn't fit with what I have garnered from the design of D&D over the 3 editions.

I will grant you that 3rd edition blurred the lines more than previous, and makes it easier to try and look at Divine and Arcane casters as "equals."


o.O

Maybe I'm just being old-fashioned, but the only regaining spells once per day rule has been pretty much etched in stone since I first sat down to AD&D with school friends.

I'm with Blake, I have a hard time believing that the designers of the game intended that you use wizards this way. Even if they say it's technically allowed, it flies in the face of the spirit of the rules; and I think someone upthread pointed out that one of the WoTC fellas said something to that effect.


Kuma wrote:
Maybe I'm just being old-fashioned, but the only regaining spells once per day rule has been pretty much etched in stone since I first sat down to AD&D with school friends.

I admit, I was wrong about that.

I just went back to my 1st edition AD&D PHB and DMG and "per day" was never even mentioned.

The only requirement was a certain amount of rest (usually sleep) based on the highest level spell that needed to be replenished [4 hours for level 1 or 2 spells, 12 hours for level 9] followed by 0.25 hours study/prayer per spell level replenished.

So, in fact, Clerics/Priests could "nova" more frequently than Wizards/Magic Users in 1st Edition due to not needing as much rest to replenish their highest level of spells.


The sad thing is, I used to argue that 8 hours rest should be all that is required. It's just that over the years and with a lot of experience in the game rules, it seems to me that only once per day is much more balanced.

I guess it's got something to do with the eclectic nature of my players though, we never have a "a class vs b class" debate.

The cleric is also a wizard, the rogue is also a fighter, etc.


Well, if it helps Kuma, I just finished referencing my 2nd edition AD&D rules...

And they are much more vague about spell preparation.

There is still no mention of "per day" but there is mention of needing a clear head usually gained from a night's sleep.

So, in second edition 8 hours wasn't even needed. (Also the prep time was reduced to 10 minutes per spell level instead of 15.)

So, it seems only 3rd Edition introduced the idea of "per day," but 2nd did infer it with the mention of a "night's sleep" as the usual method to obtain a clear mind.

The Exchange

Matt Rathbun wrote:
1) All classes want to be heroes, not just casters, and not all casters are "weenies" who can't wear armor and have no hit points.

I never wore armour, but that was less for the spell failure, than it would interfere with me showing off my studly manliness (dwarfiness?)

What's the point of cracking the 200hp barrier if you're not going to share your oiled, rippling abs with your admirers?

My viewers, scrying me on Cabal-Vision, demand their daily ration of beardcake, and nothing gets those elf-maidens more aroused than seeing a real man, to take their minds of their own, sickly, pallid, 'men'-folk.

Perfection takes work, and that work should be appreciated!

-Tycho 'Zardoz' al-Baragu


DM_Blake wrote:
Literalism & Courtrooms

DM_Blake, there is one serious flaw in your argument for checking every space, punctuation, etc; the rules as written, do not support your side of the argument.

You reference the number of times the word "day" is used in regard to spell casting seem to be the only RAW argument that you have against the RAW quote that allows preparing spells after 8 hours of rest and against the Sage's ruling.

Unfortunately, the book does not define what the word "day" means. One might assume that it means 24 hours, but that wouldn't hold up in your courtroom example. Courts of law require words to be defined within their specific context to be given meaning. Often times commonly used words in general language mean something entirely different in the context of their "art"; hence the phrase "term of art". In this particular example, the only contextual definition of what "day" means is given in the RAW:

RAW wrote:
If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit.

In context, the term day or daily limit for an arcane caster appears to mean: a period following 8 hours of rest. In contrast, when the rules mean a period of 24 hours they specifically say 24 hours - see Druid rules regarding wearing metal. In theory, if the book had indicated that the Druid was denied their abilities for a "day" then the Druid could simply have rested to remove the penalties. Wanting to preclude this possibility the rules specifically require 24 hours of penalty. If the rules had intended for the "casting day" to be limited by some number of hours they would have included that reference.

Again, going back to the literal, courtroom example, you can not infer meaning that isn't explicitly stated. It may make more sense for "day" to be considered roughly 24 hours but that is not what is stated in the RAW. I don't think anyone is arguing that this is necessarily balanced. However, it is what the rules say and even the quote from the Sage indicates that the rules allow it but the Sage would have house ruled against it.

The Exchange

Stark Enterprises VP wrote:
I know lots of you see spells as being inherently more powerful than attacks. My experience with that isn't the case at all. Between attacks of opportunity, feats in the core rules like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, and decent STR bonuses, my fighters ALWAYS outperform the mages on damage. And they can do it all day long.

Well, of course they do.

If wizards were able to match melee damage output, AND cast debilitating spells at the enemy, AND cast battlefield control spells, AND cast self-only buffs, AND cast scenario-ending divinations, AND teleport everyone round the globe in the blink of an eye, and back again in time for breakfast, then why would anyone ever take up a martial career?

Rename the game 'Wizzy-World', and have two classes, 'PCs' and 'Muggles'.

Any wizard who is trying to keep up with melee classes in damage, is abandoning his job, which is to do the things the rest of the party can't do.
Which involves far more than simply buffing; it includes blocking off flanking maneuvers, smashing through barriers, altering the shape or nature of the battlefield, delivering allies to their target, debuffing the enemy, and, maybe, once in a while, deal some damage, IF that's the most pressing tactical thing that needs doing.

But if the default approach to every encounter is 'try to deal some hit point damage', then you're not playing a wizard. You're a sorceror, a warlock, or a wand on legs.


Matt Rathbun wrote:
In this particular example, the only contextual definition of what "day" means is given in the RAW:
RAW wrote:
If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit.
In context, the term day or daily limit for an arcane caster appears to mean: a period following 8 hours of rest.

As I've pointed out, you're taking the "Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions" rule out of context, and you're empowering it to prove things it doesn't prove.

The previous paragraph, the one right before this rule, defines "Rest" as sleep for 8 hours. Then it stipulates that the wizard doesn't have to sleep for the full 8 hours, but must rest. Further it stiuplates that if this rest period is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the base of 8, extending the required rest time.

Then comes the rule you cite - it is an addendum to the previous rule.

Regardless of whether you believe in the 8-hour day or the 24 hour day, either way, it is possible that a wizard begins his 8 hours of rest with some spells still prepared if he didn't cast everything he had pepared after his last rest/prep period. It is also possible that, say, after 6 hours of rest the wizard is awoken by a wandering encounter and must fight - he cannot prepare new spells yet, so he must only use the spells he had prepared when he went to bed.

Now, if he casts any of those spells during this middle-of-the-night encounter and then goes back to bed for the remaining 3 hours of his rest period, when he wakes up he can begin to prepare his new spells for the day - but whatever spell slots he used during that encounter, only 3 hours ago, cannot be filled this morning because he used them within the previous 8 hours - per the rule you cited.

This possibility exists regardless of whether we believe in an 8-hour day or a 24-hour day.

However, if the wizard sleeps soundly for his entire uninterrupted rest period, then he has rested for 8 hours before he prepares his spells. In fact, this is required RAW - sleep, or rest, for 8 hours before preparing spells.

Because the wizard must rest for 8 hours, making a rule that says casting spells in the previous 8 hours prevents preparing those spells is silly. Of course he didn't cast any spells - he was resting! It is impossible to cast spells while he is resting! That would make this rule impossible to apply.

Unless his rest was interrupted and he cast spells during the interruption.

So, if this rule is not talking about interrupted rest, it is a silly and worthless rule, impossible to apply.

So this rule is only talking about interrupted rest.

Ergo, using a rule that only applies to an interrupted rest period to define how many hours are in a day is a fruitless argument.

Your argument is much like this:

I am trying to sell you a super fast sports car. I tell you (correctly) that it can go over 200 MPH. But you say "No, the speed limit posted on the side of the road says I can only go 65 MPH, so there is no way your sports car can go 200 MPH."

The sign on the side of the road doesn't limit the engine in the car. It applies to something else entirely (perhaps to the driver's willingness to use that engine).

Likewise, the rule you cited doesn't apply to the length of a wizard's day. It only applies to limitations on preparing spells if the wizard's rest was interrupted forcing him to cast spells during that rest period.

51 to 100 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Why is applying a Spell Failure Chance unacceptable to the community? All Messageboards