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


General Discussion (Prerelease)

151 to 200 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

The 8 hour spell recouping debate may really be moot.

After all, there are only 3 eight hour periods in a given day.

If a wizard rests 8 hours, then spends the time memorizing his spells, he will have less than 16 hours left in the day.

If he wanders around for an hour and casts his spells during a few encounters, he is now down to about 15 hours in a day.

If he rests for another 8 hours, we're down to 7 hours left, some of which he will need to re-memorize his spells, eat, break camp, etc. Less time if he is interrupted during either of his rest periods.

It's not like the Wizard can just willy-nilly re-memorize his spells at will. There are quite a few drawbacks to this multiple resting, including getting the rest of the party to go along with it (I doubt most party members would want to stop for 8 hours after each encounter), the chance of being interrupted if rest occurs near hostile environs, etc.

As for the statement about a cleric being able to get spells more than once per day, that's just too silly to refute.

However, with all that being said, I'm with DM Blake on this one.

Once a day implies once per 24 hour period. If you want to read more into the wording of the rules than that, then you're just looking for a way to bend the rules beyond their logical intent (just like with your attempt to twist the cleric rule mentioned above).

I wish you good luck with that if you play at another DM's game table, as I doubt most DMs would allow that interpretation (I've never met one who would, and I've been playing since 1978).


Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
mdt wrote:

I think you are glossing over the ring of sustenance. Let me pop it in here.

If you look at all the specifications above, the guy is getting the equivalent of 14 hours of rest every time he has a rest cycle. Actually, you could even say he's getting 32 hours of rest since he's resting 8 hours with a ring of sustenance, which gives all the benefits of 8 hours of sleep every 2 hours. Honestly, if 6 hours of sitting around resting and 2 hours of sustenance sleep (8 hours equivalent) isn't enough to recover from 8 hours of walking, then you can't walk 8 hours a day in the first place. And if that's not enough, they guy could sleep 2 hours, get up for four and play solitaire, and sleep for 2 more and get 4 hours of rest and the equivalent of 16 hours of sleep.

I honestly don't see why you don't think this is enough rest. God, I wish I could get the equivalent of 14 to 32 hours of rest between 8 hour walks.

Fair enough. I'll give you that.

The guy with the ring breaks the rules. I agreed to that, but you're right, I calculated replacing his sleep with the ring but not replacing his rest.

He can walk more than once per day without force marching. Not because we're redefining what "day" means, but because he has magic that lets him break the rules.

Even so, all the other guys with no magic to break the rules are clearly limited to 8 hours of walking between sunrises. Any more, and they're force marching.

Except that's not how muscles actually work. You can't abuse them more than a certain amount of time per day. The idea of 8 hours of walking/hiking, 8 hours of not hiking and 8 hours of resting is pretty accurate in that you need both non-activity and sleep (but for different reasons).

I'd also point out that the human body doesn't sleep on demand, which seems to be something that people seem to quickly forget when talking about the rest issue. Diurnal creatures and nocturnal creatures still operate on a 24-hour schedule regardless of what we actually want.

Sleep while removing sleepiness doesn't remove muscle-fatigue by itself. It's not as if sleep is the cure-all. Sleep is more efficient at repairing the body, but it's not god-like in its ability to do so. And yes

Walk 8/Sleep 8/Walk 8/Sleep 8

would incur force marched requirements since you are marching 16 out of every 24 hours. Sleeping in the middle of the day didn't confuse your body. And it's particularly difficult to sleep 16 out of 24 hours except in college on exam day..

The work/rest argument with the definition of a day I think is reading the rules too literally while ignoring the fact that a person's natural cycle is based on the rotation of the planet or plane. And in my campaign it may not be 24 hours (hence the lack of use of the word day everywhere), but do understand that the book was written by multiple authors at multiple times and that some authors are going to use 24 hours and some authors are going to use day depending on what reads best to them. The core rules are not legal doctrine and weren't written to those standards. The book is supposed to be a joy to read and clear. Sometimes clarity was forsaken to joyfulness. But rest assured (no pun intended) that they assumed everyone would be assuming that people understood 1 day to be 1 day as every common person understands (with the exception of the rules lawyer who in his section made sure to mention 24 hours). But also understand that the use of 24 hours doesn't preclude the concept of a day being 24 hours, but rather that the spell doesn't end at daybreak.


SuperSheep wrote:
Diurnal creatures and nocturnal creatures still operate on a 24-hour schedule regardless of what we actually want.

What about my crepuscular elf mage?

Sovereign Court

Matt Rathbun wrote:

I have noted in a few threads on these boards that anytime the possibility arises to apply a penalty to a caster that might cause them to lose a spell a large and vocal section of the community backlashes against the concept and appears completely unwilling to consider the idea under any circumstances.

What I don't understand is why. Why are spell slots sacred (obvious puns about Clerics aside)? Why should casters be immune from losing a resource or having an action fail when every other class has abilities that can be rendered ineffective or be denied the ability to use key class features? Why is even the smallest chance of failure unacceptable? And why have I seen posters advocating for penalties to Caster Level and all of the negatives that would entail, including losing the ability to cats more potent spells, rather than face any chance of losing a spell for that rest period?

Frankly, I just don't understand this mentality. I have heard the argument regarding the "15 minute adventuring day" and I personally find it to be unsatisfying. The 15 minute adventuring day seems to be more a problem of DMs who choose to not follow encounter guidelines than it is a critic of the game's mechanics. While I would be happy to get into a deeper discussion of the 15 minute issue - I have yet to seen any of its advocates respond to the encounter guidelines argument - I am also curious to know if there is any other justification for granting spells this Holy Grail, untouchable status.

Sorry I didn't get time to read through the other posts, but the Pathfinder sorcerer in last night game kept on losing spells, and, as the game master, I was loving this. GMs must simply stand their ground, and let the caster lose spells. Slots are not sacred. There is no gods-given right of players to have "insurance" that their spells will work. Very much of this, and the leading trend toward the latter days of v.3.5 (I cannot speak for 4e - not my cup of kewlaid), the players started "demanding" to invoke rules to help them ensure their actions worked. This was likely the result of 8 years of marketing of rulesbooks to both players and GMs to increase sales, rather than the former 1:6 ratio. No value judgement here. But the OP asked "where do4es this come from," and I think part of the answer has to do with players, and much of the generational norms, expecting that everyone should win all the time. Very similar to losing T-ball teams getting to go out for ice-cream every time whether they win or lose.

My opinion: the game has ups, and it has downs. Fortunately players are now allowing the great pendulumn of trends to swing back to making the game fun again, challenging again, but honoring the role of the GM to disallow spells for any reason, primarily that of failed checks and so forth. "After gesturing and reciting magic words, nothing happens. You lose your spell," was on my lips a lot in last night's game. The canaloths had SR, along with some other foes. This is part and parcel of the game.

I hope I'm not way off here from the OPs question.... I'll stop back and read other responses a little later. Thanks for letting me share my very recent experience with this.

P.s. The player, who started with me back in 2006 in another campaign, began as quite the "rules-lawyer" and quite the "munchkin", but we have worked on him, such that now he "role-plays" and enjoys the suspension of disbelief again - something that for a while imo, wasn't taught in loo of game companies' focus on game mechanics, and the inevitable influence of video games.

No attacks or value judgments intended. Just my observations imo.

Sovereign Court

Matt Rathbun wrote:
While I would be happy to get into a deeper discussion of the 15 minute issue - I have yet to seen any of its advocates respond to the encounter guidelines argument

Oh, and just my 2cp on this (apologies again for not reading through the thread), ...

The way I design encounters is the 13.333 thingy. Basically, I have varied encounters at various CR levels, not everything is hard, not everything is easy. And these events occur roughly in-between levels. I am very planful - like PAIZO, in the way I design my homebrew adventure paths, what I still call story arcs sometimes.

And I invoke quite a bit of Gygax's sense of a naturalistic world, so if the players decide to screw with the Ettin, Cyclopse, or Owlbear in the cave at low levels - good luck, they might survive or not.

But much of what I have heard about the 15 minute adventuring day is either a phallacy or it is not executed right on the part of the GM.

A BIG "FOR EXAMPLE": Over the course of three 4-hour sessions, my players, impersonating another group, arrived as passengers on a slaver/lumber ship in an isolated coastal slaver city. The hoped to rescue the imprisoned knights of their barony who were abducted and forced to turn the mighty cog-wheels of an inter-planar apparatus beneath the Palace of the Skull. They breeched the palaces outer defenses, found a secret way in, demolished several construct guardians, imprisoned a score of palace guards in the mess hall, difiled an evil chapel, discovered an ancient prophesy. [AT THIS POINT THE PARTY EXITED THE PALACE TO RECOUP/REPLENISH, THEN QUICKLY WENT BACK IN), attacked some sepalchrul guardians, battled an alchemical double, bravely crossed a bridge above a chasm to Ghenna, crushed messoloths, canoloths, an evil tiefling henchman, turned summoned skeletons, rescued six knights - releasing them from turning the six anchors that would open Ghenna's cooridore to the prime, and as a climax - the little halfling used an arrow of slaying to hit the DC of the Ultraloth coming through the portal (totally amazing ending and incredible shot!).

So who wants to add up, just how many 6-second rounds occurred, or how much time was spent in-between.

Bottom line, as the game master, I recognized the party was hit pretty hard during the initial assault. And they used much of their "reserve" magic items, charges, potions, what have you to replenish what they could. But they went back in! They couldn't afford to just "go home" and rest. After going back in, I swear they were DRAINED to the core. They pulled out stuff they'd acquired 5 levels earlier that they never used, and the sorcerer, was drained of almost every last spell slot (including those lost from spells that didn't pass caster level checks!), and the players LOVED IT. Sure, they worried, sure it was tense, there might have been some comments like, "I don't know if we have anything left!?"

But it was a great game, a great arc. IMO, game masters who let their v.3.5/Pathfinder games run without concern for party depletion are making good use of the "economics" of the game that keep adventurers coming back time and again for more money, magic, and mayhem!

It might be a "comfort zone" thing for some players to always want to be AT FULL when they start encounters. But this does not necessarily need to be so.

There is a lot of adventure to be had, I argue this even enhanced the overall feel of the encounter, when the party is at half or fractional readiness. The story should drive all these choices, not the habits learned from video games where you only want to "start" the scene when you've restored all "Manna" "health" "power-widgit-thingys" to full.

Table top gaming is a marvelous, intelligent past time, in which the players will know when they've had enough... when party memebers start dying... or need to be dragged away, and restored from death's door.

*Again, just some thoughts on this, no value judgement. There are many views I am sure. But I wanted to share these ideas in relation to the OPs questions....

The Exchange

Since I'm at work I haven't had much time to read all the posts in this thread, but just a few notes from my playing at Paizocon. The spell failure of high level spells does suck when standing next to someone, but it ended up only being ~50% for the caster's highest level spells. When you account for combat casting (previously a useless feat), then the failure chance suddenly drops to ~30% (for the highest level spell, and -10% per spell level to an auto-succeed 3 spell levels lower).

The most important thing is that once I realized that I might fail a spell, I starting doing intelligent things to get around it. I started casting my touch spells the round before or before I moved next to the monster so I wouldn't have to roll anyways. Or I'd tactically be very very wary of going into a corner. When it comes down to it, the only time a caster will be forced into rolling the concentration check is if the character is in a corner or surrounded. At this point, it just seems fair to me that they have a decent failure rate.

And on a last note... I didn't get a chance to play a Paladin or Ranger with the final rules, but it actually got easier for them to cast in combat. Both of their caster levels are now level -3 not half level. Combine this with the fact that they both have slower spell level progression (4 spell levels over 17 character levels, or an average of 4.25 character levels per spell level) AND the fact that they no longer need a skill to concentrate (whether it's concentration or spellcraft, neither a Paladin nor a Ranger wants to take the skill usually) makes it alot easier for the classes that are more likely to cast in combat than a sorcerer or wizard.

(Note that I didn't mention cleric or druid there... Clerics and/or druids are more likely to be in melee as well, but generally they don't "need" to be in melee and can afford to 5-foot step backwards out of harms way to cast, whereas a paladin or ranger would prefer to stay in combat for flanking, protection, AoOs, etc.)

So... just my 2cp after playing a little with the Final rules this last weekend.


SuperSheep wrote:


Except that's not how muscles actually work. You can't abuse them more than a certain amount of time per day. The idea of 8 hours of walking/hiking, 8 hours of not hiking and 8 hours of resting is pretty accurate in that you need both non-activity and sleep (but for different reasons).

*sigh*

Yes, and that was my point. The ring gives you ALL THE BENEFITS of 8 hours of sleep for 2 hours of sleep. That was the point. That walk 8 hours/rest 8 hours was with the ring. That means the person wearing it is, in 16 hours, walking 8 hours, sleeping 8 hours, and getting 6 hours of 'down time'. We're not dealing with real world, we are dealing with magic, which violates natural law, right? Otherwise, it's not magic.

SuperSheep wrote:


I'd also point out that the human body doesn't sleep on demand, which seems to be something that people seem to quickly forget when talking about the rest issue. Diurnal creatures and nocturnal creatures still operate on a 24-hour schedule regardless of what we actually want.

Sleep while removing sleepiness doesn't remove muscle-fatigue by itself. It's not as if sleep is the cure-all. Sleep is more efficient at repairing the body, but it's not god-like in its ability to do so. And yes

Walk 8/Sleep 8/Walk 8/Sleep 8

would incur force marched requirements since you are marching 16 out of every 24 hours. Sleeping in the middle of the day didn't confuse your body. And it's particularly difficult to sleep 16 out of 24 hours except in college on exam day..

Never said that you could. However, when you walk yourself for 8 hours, your body is drained and tired, it will sleep. The human body can get by on 4 hours of sleep a day, or 16 hours of sleep. Both are extremes and bad for you, but the body can do it if you want it to. I have chronic insomnia, I survive on an average of 5 hours of sleep a night. Every few weeks my body crashes and I sleep for 20 hours. It sucks. The point being, the ring turns 2 hours of sleep into 8. It's a magical effect.

SuperSheep wrote:


The work/rest argument with the definition of a day I think is reading the rules too literally while ignoring the fact that a person's natural cycle is based on the rotation of the planet or plane. And in my campaign it may not be 24 hours (hence the lack of use of the word day everywhere), but do understand that the book was written by multiple authors at multiple times and that some authors are going to use 24 hours and some authors are going to use day depending on what reads best to them. The core rules are not legal doctrine and weren't written to those standards. The book is supposed to be a joy to read and clear. Sometimes clarity was forsaken to joyfulness. But rest assured (no pun intended) that they assumed everyone would be assuming that people understood 1 day to be 1 day as every common person understands (with the exception of the rules lawyer who in his section made sure to mention 24 hours). But also understand that the use of 24 hours doesn't preclude the concept of a day being 24 hours, but rather that the spell doesn't end at daybreak.

Again,

I don't argue your logic, it's very real world and very logical. But it's not RAW. The rules of the game aren't supposed to describe the real world, but the game world. And within the game world, magic happens.

You'll also notice, I did say that such a schedule was a temporary thing, not something you'd do forever. Eventually, your body just can't take it (which we both agree on). I just think that the magic that lets you 'break the rules' lets you avoid the penalties, for a time, but eventually you will start degrading yourself.

Either way, I'm tired of this argument. So this'll be my last post on it. There comes a time in a rules debate when all who can be persuaded one way or the other have been persuaded, and then it devolves down into a 'My way'/'No, My Way!' discussion, which is pointless.


Matt Rathbun wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

Fair enough. I'll give you that.

The guy with the ring breaks the rules. I agreed to that, but you're right, I calculated replacing his sleep with the ring but not replacing his rest.

He can walk more than once per day without force marching. Not because we're redefining what "day" means, but because he has magic that lets him break the rules.

Even so, all the other guys with no magic to break the rules are clearly limited to 8 hours of walking between sunrises. Any more, and they're force marching.

If we are willing to agree that "magic breaks the rules" then it seems to me we would follow the rules for preparation of magic laid out in the section of the book about magic no matter how that may jive with our other interpretations of time. After all, magic breaks the rules.

Also, it seems that we have also agreed that it is the rest our marching character takes that determines when the character has to start taking penalties, not the clock on the wall. At which point it would also follow that it is the rest a magic user gets, again not the clock on the wall, that allows them to replenish spell slots. In other words if an arcane caster casts a spell, then rests for a full 8 hours, they get that spell slot back because it is the rest and not the clock that restores them; just like is written in the rules.

LoL, no.

We've agreed that a certain magic item breaks a certain rule.

That is not a blanket Carte Blanche that says we've agreed all magic breaks all rules, or that because something is magic, the rules for using that magic are automatically broken by that same magic.

And "just like is written in the rules" is blatantly wrong, since the rules never say anything but "Daily spell allotment" and "preparing spells for the day".

Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about preparing spells every 8 hours or every time a caster takes a nap.

Just because one rule, just one rule, "Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions" says you can't prepare a spell slot you cast in the last 8 hours, does not mean that you can prepare all your spell slots as long as 8 hours has elapsed.

One rule that says you cannot do somehing does not automtically make all other things valid.

Your logic is flawed.

It would be like this:

In the U.S. we have a law that says it's illegal to rob banks. A man walks into a bank and sees a sign posted that says it's illegal to loiter inside the bank. From that sign he infers that they only said it's illegal to loiter, so it must be OK to rob the bank.

One rule that limits one thing does not make all other limits invalid.

And if you will note the name of that rule: "Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions". Note that the name of the very rule you are so fond of quoting specifcilly includes the words "Rest Interruptions" right in the rule.

Hint: that's the only thing the rule references. That's why "Rest Interruptions" is in the name of the rule.

Shadow Lodge

Dm Blake. Correct me if i 'm wrong.

Your arguement is that multiple rests within a 24 hour period are impossible because the rulebooks do not specifically allow for that rule (nor deny it specifically). The few cases that are indicative of allowing it need to be disregarded as falacious because it is not possible for a caster, (regardless of class at this point) to rest and cast a spell, (even though there are presented examples showing other possibilites, they must be ignored because you feel like it? I don't know what the logic that these can't work???). So that rule, as there is 0% chance that it can actually happen is to be ignored, even though it specifically answers the question, (can this happen? Yes technically that can happen, but we see no reason a dm can disallow it if abused).

Because an item overules a rule, rules must rule, therefore the item can't break the rules, (regardless of the fact that in that case, the ring of sustenance is a 2000 gp waste of 100% uselessness).

Therefore if a is true, b is true, a + b can not ever equal c, so we have to take d,e,f, and k into account as the only true test of fact.


Pax Veritas wrote:


Sorry I didn't get time to read through the other posts, but the Pathfinder sorcerer in last night game kept on losing spells, and, as the game master, I was loving this. GMs must simply stand their ground, and let the caster lose spells. Slots are not sacred. There is no gods-given right of players to have "insurance" that their spells will work. Very much of this, and the leading trend toward the latter days of v.3.5 (I cannot speak for 4e - not my cup of kewlaid), the players started "demanding" to invoke rules to help them ensure their actions worked. This was likely the result of 8 years of marketing of rulesbooks to both players and GMs to increase sales, rather than the former 1:6 ratio. No value judgement here. But the OP asked "where do4es this come from," and I think part of the answer has to do with players, and much of the generational norms, expecting that everyone should win all the time. Very similar to losing T-ball teams getting to go out for ice-cream every time whether they win or lose.

Just a little background: this thread started becaue someone created another thread discussing a possible houserule change so that Fear spells and other Fear effects don't make anyone run awy, they just impose penalties on your d20 rolls and a chance of spell failure. Some other people, myself included, suggested that spell failure is too much of a penalty - after all, the fighters just run a risk of being somewhere between -2 and -6 to their attack rolls, so they will get a few more misses, a few less hits, but be otherwise OK. They won't even lose actions, but casters have a flat chance to lose entire actins AND lose a non-repeatable resource.

That houserule seems imblanced, and that thread hashed back and forth and finally seems to have settled on failing the caster check while feared means unable to cast but no loss of spell, with some holdouts preferring to still go with imposing the spell loss.

Then this thread appeared asking us why we're so against losing spells.

My take is that the game has enough ways to lose spells. If a player does something to himself, like putting on chainmail, or standing next to the troll when they cast, then it's their own fault if they lose the spell.

Occasionally either the PCs or the bad guys use some good tactics and surround a caster with enough bodies to force those caster checks, and occasionally that loses spells too.

But now people are coming up with house rules to find more ways to lose spells.

I think that's dangerous. How far will it go?

How about a houserule that says a caster as a Spell Failure chance if he's poisoned? How about if he's in the dark? How about if he's hungry? How about just putting a SF chance on every spell he ever casts?

Where does it stop?

I think enough is enough. Casters already have enough ways to disable their primary, and in most cases, only class feature that is useful in combat. They don't need any more.

But that doesn't mean I'm opposed in any way to the existing rules that impose a chance of losing a spell. I'm especially fond of those methods that the caster inflicts upon himself, or that result from good tactics and teamwork by the caster's enemies.


Sorry Toyrobots, if I'm reading you correctly you're addressing something that was never the intent of the thread.

Basically someone was suggesting a house rule that made casters roll a check every time they cast, and failing it cost them the spell (at a rather high rate of failure, from what people have suggested). No one minds SR.


Kuma wrote:

Sorry Toyrobots, if I'm reading you correctly you're addressing something that was never the intent of the thread.

Basically someone was suggesting a house rule that made casters roll a check every time they cast, and failing it cost them the spell (at a rather high rate of failure, from what people have suggested). No one minds SR.

Kuma,

No one ever suggested a check for each spell cast.


Beckett wrote:
Dm Blake. Correct me if i 'm wrong.

OK, I will.

Beckett wrote:
Your arguement is that multiple rests within a 24 hour period are impossible because the rulebooks do not specifically allow for that rule (nor deny it specifically).

You're wrong. That's not my argument.

The rulebook says, over and over, "daily spell allotment", "spells per day", etc. Always daily. Always.

There is nothing in the book that says it isn't daily. Nor is there anything in the book that says that "daily" means less than a day. Daily means, to everyone on this planet, and to everyone on your wizard's planet, the time period equivalent to the planetary revolution around its axis. Or the time period from midnight to midnight, or maybe sun-up to sun-up in some cultures. "Daily" never means "from the time I wake up from my nap until the next time I wake up from another nap" - nobody has ever defined "daily" to mean that in any culture, real or imaginary, that I've ever heard of.

So the book says the spells are prepared daily. That's once per day. Defined as once per planetary revolution, or once in a period that represents midnight today until midnight tomorrow.

That's the rule in the book.

Now if you show me a magic item similar to the Ring of Sustenance, maybe a Ring of Urgent Magic, that says spellcasters can prepare their spells more often than once/day, then I'll concede that magic can override this rule.

Heck, a Pearl of Power already overrides this rule - but that is a specific case of a specific item that breaks the general rule.

In all other cases, the rule stands as written.

Beckett wrote:
The few cases that are indicative of allowing it need to be disregarded as falacious because it is not possible for a caster, (regardless of class at this point) to rest and cast a spell, (even though there are presented examples showing other possibilites, they must be ignored because you feel like it?

You're wrong again. It's not because I feel like it, but because there are no specific cases in the core books that allow a caster to prepare a spell slot more than once per day (except the Pearl of Power which is specifically designed to break the rule).

I cannot make it any clearer that the rule called "Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions" is exactly what the title implies: a rule representing casting limits when your 8-hour rest is interrupted and use use spell slots during that interruption.

Just because that rule imposes further limits on how you prepare spells, it doesn't mean that all the other limits are no longer applicable. The other limits, in this case, being that you can only prepare spells once per day.

If you can present me another rule that states a wizard can prepare spells more than once/day, I'd love to see it.

Yes, I know about the FAQ. I've covered that in prvious posts, but in short, the one sentence in the FAQ is in reference to a question with two parts, it fails to adequately answer the entire 2-part question, and it contradicts other statements in the same FAQ - so it seems highly questionable to me as a reliable sentence to overrule everything else in the core rulebook.

Beckett wrote:
I don't know what the logic that these can't work???). So that rule, as there is 0% chance that it can actually happen is to be ignored, even though it specifically answers the question, (can this happen? Yes technically that can happen, but we see no reason a dm can disallow it if abused).

No, you're wrong again.

That rule can actually happen. A wizard who is resting to prepare spells can wake up in the middle of that rest and have an encounter. He can cast spells during that encounter, in which case the "Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions" rule is invoked. But only in that case.

This just has nothing to do with whether or not he is resting for the first time that day, or first time that week, or 10th time that day. Nothing in this rule says how many times he is allowed to rest during the day.

All it says is that if he is resting and gets interrupted and uses spells, he cannot prepare those spell slots that he used within the last 8 hours. Spell slots he used more than 8 hours ago he can prepare according to all the other normal rules for preparing spells.

One of those other normal rules for preparing spells is that they can only be prepared once per day - it says so all over the core books.

Beckett wrote:

Because an item overules a rule, rules must rule, therefore the item can't break the rules, (regardless of the fact that in that case, the ring of sustenance is a 2000 gp waste of 100% uselessness).

Therefore if a is true, b is true, a + b can not ever equal c, so we have to take d,e,f, and k into account as the only true test of fact.

I just don't understand this part at all, but I hope that the rest of this post addresses your concerns adequately.


DM_Blake wrote:
Magic is Special Debate

1) The Recent Casting Rule appears three times, only for the Wizard does it have the /Interrupted Rest tag line. It is a stand alone rule not otherwise associated with rest interruptions save that if you cast during the interruption you won't have that slot back because you won't have rested for the required 8 hours since it was cast.

2) Actually the rules do quite clearly and explicitly say that you can in fact restore a spell slot as long as you have rested for at least 8 hours since the spell from that slot was cast. What is not stated anywhere in the rules is that you can only take advantage of this refresh once every 24 hours.

3) I could have sworn I put in the [/hyperbole] flag a few posts ago. Oh well, maybe this one will take care of it.

4) You still haven't responded to the fact that both mechanically and from a flavor perspective resting makes more sense than some form of artificial timer for determining the bright line for when "daily" allotments of things may be reset. (See the overland travel thought experiment where you conceded that a character who gets the required amount of rest through magical means can in fact walk more than 8 hours in a 24 hour period without taking any penalties.) Since you choose not to respond to this point, which is really the rules/mechanics based argument, shall we consider it conceded? If so I think this portion of this debate is over.


Gotta tell ya, it sure is a good thing nobody brought up something like making a fighter drop his one weapon that he's really kick-ass with (say, a Scythe or something). There could have been several pages of people arguing differing points without reading entire posts.


DM_Blake wrote:
The FAQ is Wrong Argument

I hate to Necro back to a few pages ago, but could you explain this again. Short, sweet, and simple if you can.

FAQ wrote:

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.

To me that fairly clearly addresses all of the points being made on this subject:

1) RAW you can in fact rest and regain spells more than once per day.

2) No this doesn't really make sense, but it is what is written in the rules. (I don't know that anyone is actually advocating allowing arcane casters to rest multiple times, I'm not sure anyone really cares one way or the other, from my perspective at least this has always and only been about what is actually written in the rules not what makes sense or even what is balanced.)

3) Even the Sage would house rule against this, but that would be a house rule.

Shadow Lodge

Thinking it over, this whole thread seems like people are arguing about something several PrCs already take care of. Oh, you want to cast arcane spells in armor? Would you like to be a spellsword, a bladesinger, a suel aracanamach, or a rage mage?

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Matt Rathbun wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Magic is Special Debate

1) The Recent Casting Rule appears three times, only for the Wizard does it have the /Interrupted Rest tag line.

You're twisting the rule to suit your opinion as opposed to looking at it objectively. In other words:

*The Recent Caster Rule applies to all spellcasters.

*The Interrupted Rest rule applies ONLY to Wizards.

The Interrupted Rest tagline appears for the Wizard and not the other classes because that rule only applies to Wizards. Wizards are the only caster class that needs to rest and actually prepare his spells from a spellbook. This means that they may have to cope with interruptions during their prep time. Thus, the rule is necessary for the Wizard class.

All other casters either inherently know the spells, or pray for them at a specific time, so interrupted rest does not apply to their spell preparation process.

However, the Recent Casting Rule applies to all caster classes.


DM_Blake wrote:
Just a little background...

As the OP of this thread I would like to add just a little to the background here:

I was inspired to open this debate because of the responses DM_Blake and others made in the "Fear. What's up with that stuff?" thread and a few posts I had seen in other discussions like "How are melee classes in higher levels?" In each case, no matter what mechanic was being discussed, no matter if the discussion revolved around house rules or the beta testing of PfRPG, anytime any new method of forcing a caster into losing a spell was brought up, be that requiring concentration checks or longer casting times or flat % chances for failure, the portion of the community DM_Blake has come to represent in this thread would strongly oppose the suggestion. There appeared to be no circumstances under which the loss of a spell, with the exception of the 3 ways provided in the core rules, would be acceptable to this part of the community. In the example of the Fear thread DM_Blake even went so far as to say that he liked the mechanic and would be happy to play in a game that used it so long as spell interruption only caused a loss of an action and not the loss of the spell.

What I wanted to understand, and why I created a separate thread to discuss it, was why the loss of that spell was not ever to be considered. I suspected that it might all boil down to the myth of the 15 minute adventuring day and perhaps I should have just started a thread with that title, but I wanted to see if there was any other reasoning behind why the loss of an action was acceptable but the loss of a spell slot was a bridge too far.

[/background]


Pax Veritas wrote:
A BIG FOR EXAMPLE:

Pax,

Thanks for sharking that tale. This is exactly the type of thing I was thinking of when I posed the initial question and started to think about the Myth of the 15 minute adventuring day.

Thanks again for helping to get this thread back on track. I would like to get back to that discussion if at all possible.


Larry Lichman wrote:
Matt Rathbun wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Magic is Special Debate

1) The Recent Casting Rule appears three times, only for the Wizard does it have the /Interrupted Rest tag line.

You're twisting the rule to suit your opinion as opposed to looking at it objectively. In other words:

*The Recent Caster Rule applies to all spellcasters.

*The Interrupted Rest rule applies ONLY to Wizards.

The Interrupted Rest tagline appears for the Wizard and not the other classes because that rule only applies to Wizards. Wizards are the only caster class that needs to rest and actually prepare his spells from a spellbook. This means that they may have to cope with interruptions during their prep time. Thus, the rule is necessary for the Wizard class.

All other casters either inherently know the spells, or pray for them at a specific time, so interrupted rest does not apply to their spell preparation process.

However, the Recent Casting Rule applies to all caster classes.

I wasn't intending to imply that the interruptions rule didn't apply to all classes. What I was doing was challenging DM_Blake's view that this rule only applies in the instance of interruption as opposed to anytime spells are being prepared. I pointed out that it only has the / in the Wizards section as an offer of evidence that this is in fact a stand alone rule and not a "side rule" that can simply be ignored.

Also, the FAQ cleared up that Divine casters are stuck with once every 24 hours. I am happy to concede that point. It breaks the balance of the classes, perhaps, but I have never been arguing that the rules as written are balanced but rather that they simply are the rules as written. Note: The Sage agrees with me on this one.


DM_Blake wrote:

"Daily" never means "from the time I wake up from my nap until the next time I wake up from another nap" - nobody has ever defined "daily" to mean that in any culture, real or imaginary, that I've ever heard of.

I don't know ... when I get emails from my students timestamped at 5 am referring to "what will be happening in tomorrow's class" which happens to be at 10 am (5 hours later), I begin to believe that some people are beginning define "daily" just this way.

.... that doesn't mean they are right ...or sane... but some people may attempt to define "daily" thusly in an attempt to excuse a twisting of the rules to their own ends. So, I'm gonna have to agree with your assessment on this one here DM Blake: "Daily" = X times in a 24 hour period.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I KNEW Ixancoatl would bring some sanity back to the discussion...


Larry Lichman wrote:
I KNEW Ixancoatl would bring some sanity back to the discussion...

Hey, I've been marshalling my energies for just such an occassion.

btw, LL ... that thread from last summer has reared its ugly head again... muahahaha

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ixancoatl wrote:
Larry Lichman wrote:
I KNEW Ixancoatl would bring some sanity back to the discussion...

Hey, I've been marshalling my energies for just such an occassion.

btw, LL ... that thread from last summer has reared its ugly head again... muahahaha

Some threads will not stay dead...Just like liches...


Matt Rathbun wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
The FAQ is Wrong Argument

I hate to Necro back to a few pages ago, but could you explain this again. Short, sweet, and simple if you can.

FAQ wrote:

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.

To me that fairly clearly addresses all of the points being made on this subject:

Sure - It's simple, it's sweet, but it's not short. It can't be fully explained in a sentence. Sorry.

Point 1. The question in the FAQ really asks two qustions. "Can I rest more than once per day?" and "Can I cast a spell that lasts an entire day, then rest, then recast the spell?". Two separate questions.

The answer the Sage gives only answers that second question. "While this is technically within the rules" - while what is technically within the rules? Answer: casting a daily spell a second time before the first expires. "the Sage nevertheless would support any Dungeon Master that disallowed it" - OK, the Sage supports any DM that disallows casting a second time before the first expires. "Ultimately, it comes down to the DM’s vision of how magic works in her campaign" - so each DM needs to address how magic works in his/her campaign regarding casting daily spells a second time before the first expires.

None of that - none of it says you can prepare a spell slot more than once in a 24 hour period.

That sage qustion could work like this: Mr. wizard wakes up at 8am and prepares spells. On of those spells is something "that lasts for the entire day". Then, much later, say, near midnight, he casts that day-long spell. Then he goes to bed, wakes up the next morning, and prepares that day-long spell. Can he cast it again?

The way I worded that question is a much clearer wording that means the same thing as what is in the FAQ. And note, in my example, Mr. Wizard follows the rule about preparing spells only once per day.

And the Sage answers the question according to how I just reworded it: it's technically within the rules to recast your day-long spell before the previous casting wears out and thus have it in effect twice, at least for the next 16 hours or so. The Sage would support any DM who disallows that. Ultimately this is up to the DM.

See? Nothing about peparing spells more than once per day.

So the Sage advice, in this case, is very vague and unclear, but this is clearly what the Sage meant to say.

Point 2. In in this passage from the Sage that is quoted over and over in this thread, no mention of class is given. The question and aswer could easily refer to clerics, wizards, paladins, whatever. But the same FAQ, on the prvious page, it very clearly states that divine casters who prepare spells (cleric, etc.) can only do so once per day.

So if you want to argue that this vague and unclear Sage answer really does allow preparing spells more than once per day (which it doesn't - but I can see how people might think it does), then you also have to reconcile that the Sage just contradicted himself. On one page he says clerics can prepare spells only once per day, and on the next page he says they can.

Clearly a contradiction, for those who argue the Sage is allowing multiple daily preparations.

So this oft-quoted sentence from the Sage:
1. Answers a different question - "Can I have two insances of a spell that lasts all day?"
2. Answers it vaguely in a way that is obviously misinterpreted
3. Contradicts itself from 1 page earlier (but only if you support the misinterpretation that it permits multiple daily preparation)
4. Violates everything said in the core SRD with a single sentence and no explanation or justification for that violation.
5. Completely imbalances spellcasting classes against any logical expectation.

That's a lot for one sentence.

Too much for me, when the simpler answer is, the one sentence in question really answers the question of whether a caster can have two instances of one daily spell running concurrently - in that context, there is no problem at all.

And in that context, no spellcaster is given any permission to violate the rules regarding one daily spell preparation.


Matt Rathbun wrote:
I wasn't intending to imply that the interruptions rule didn't apply to all classes. What I was doing was challenging DM_Blake's view that this rule only applies in the instance of interruption as opposed to anytime spells are being prepared. I pointed out that it only has the / in the Wizards section as an offer of evidence that this is in fact a stand alone rule and not a "side rule" that can simply be ignored.

Yes, you're right. The sorcerer/bard rule doesn't specifically state "Interrupted Rest" in the rule title.

But it does state "As with wizards" as the first three words in the rule text. For wizards, it's clearly a rule referencing interrupted rest, and for sorcerers and bards, it works "as with wizards", making it the same thing across the board for all arcane casters.

For divne spells, it says "As with arcane spells", and since all arcane spells work the same way, this rule makes all divine spells work the same way too: interrupted rest.

Your point here is moot.

It's still a clarification of the preparation rule. All classes can only prepare once per day and if they cast spells during their 8 hours of resting, those spell slots cannot be prepared this day.

Easy enough.

That extra clause is inclusive. It includes all the other rules we know about preparing spells and adds a new rule to it. The new rule added here adjudicates what to do if the caster used some spells while resting. It has no bearing on how often he can rest or prepare spells - that rule is established elsehwere, not here.


Ixancoatl wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

"Daily" never means "from the time I wake up from my nap until the next time I wake up from another nap" - nobody has ever defined "daily" to mean that in any culture, real or imaginary, that I've ever heard of.

I don't know ... when I get emails from my students timestamped at 5 am referring to "what will be happening in tomorrow's class" which happens to be at 10 am (5 hours later), I begin to believe that some people are beginning define "daily" just this way.

.... that doesn't mean they are right ...or sane... but some people may attempt to define "daily" thusly in an attempt to excuse a twisting of the rules to their own ends. So, I'm gonna have to agree with your assessment on this one here DM Blake: "Daily" = X times in a 24 hour period.

LOL

I hear what you mean.

I used to work a swing shift. We would start at 6pm and end at 2am. When we went home, many of my teammates would say "See you tomorrow" even though we were all coming back later his same day. They initially failed to grasp that it's 2am on a Tuesday, and returning at 6pm on the same Tuesday would not be "tomorrow."

I drove them nuts by replying "Nope, I'll see you today."

The difference is, they would instantly see what I meant, laugh, tell me that was irritating because "tomorrow" sounded farther away and I was popping their bubble. But they would get it. None of them ever told me "Nope, I'm redefining the word 'tomorrow' to begin after I wake up later today."

I'm not sure why this D&D rule is any harder to get...


DM_Blake wrote:
The FAQ is Wrong Continued

I think your first point is incorrect. The poster is really only asking one question: "Can you rest for 8 hours more than once per day?" The second question you cite begins with the phrase: "For example:" meaning that what is to follow is a further explanation of the original question. As a result, only one answer from the Sage is required since there is really just one question.

Moreover, there is no reason for you to assume that the answer provided, even if you do assume that there are really two questions, is a response to the second question and not the first question. Nothing in the response points specifically to either of the two sentences that comprise the question that was posed to the Sage. The answer could just as easily be responding to the question of "Can you rest for 8 hours more than once per day"; although really, there is only one question with a clarifying example so only one answer was ever required.

I agree that the question posed to the Sage was poorly worded. However, there is nothing in the question or the Sage's answer to support your reinterpretation. You focus on the fact that it was an "all day" spell that was cast. The questioner could just as easily have asked: "Can you rest for 8 hours more than once per day? For example: could I cast a spell, then rest, then cast the spell again using the same spell slot?" In which case the answer: "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." makes just as much sense as it does to the original question and as it does to your rewording of the question. But no matter how you slice it rewording the question is not a valid argument for or against either of our positions as our rewordings are not the question that the Sage ruled on and we can not know how those rewordings might have altered the answer.

As to point 2, Divine casters are the exception and not the rule. Nothing in this response says it applies to Divine casters just like nothing in the Divine caster's response says that applies to Arcane casters. If the correct answer is that you may only prepare a spell slot once per day then why didn't the Sage simply respond to the Divine question by stating that all casters may only prepare a spell once per day? Why limit the response to Divine casters, and prepared Divine casters at that? (Remember another question regarding daily preparation of spontaneous divine casters spell slots indicated that they prepare like a Sorcerer.)


Matt Rathbun wrote:


4) You still haven't responded to the fact that both mechanically and from a flavor perspective resting makes more sense than some form of artificial timer for determining the bright line for when "daily" allotments of things may be reset. (See the overland travel thought experiment where you conceded that a character who gets the required amount of rest through magical means can in fact walk more than 8 hours in a 24 hour period without taking any penalties.) Since you choose not to respond to this point, which is really the rules/mechanics based argument, shall we consider it conceded? If so I think this portion of this debate is over.

Still waiting...


DM_Blake wrote:
I'm not sure why this D&D rule is any harder to get...

1) There are rules quoted that support the 8 hour theory.

2) There is a FAQ quoted that supports the 8 hour theory.

3) There are no rules quoted that support the 24 hour theory.

4) There are no FAQs quoted that support the 24 hour theory.

5) The logic of the thought experiment was conceded.

PS: Seriously done with this. I'm off to Necro some older posts about the 15 minute day to try and shove this thread back on track.


DM_Blake wrote:

You're missing a key point in this logic.

How many magic missiles can a level 1 wizard cast? What if he also prepared a Shield spell today?

Answer: just 1, unless he has a 20 INT, in which case it's 2.

Just 2 Magic Missiles.

Now we fight some orcs. The fight takes 8 rounds.

Then we fight some goblins for 6 more rounds.

Then we fight some more orcs for 9 rounds.

And then we fight an ogre for 6 rounds.

That's a good day at level 1.

Now answer this:

1. How many rounds did we fight?
2. How many times did the fighter swing his sword?
3. How many times did the wizard cast Magic Missile?

Answer:

1. 29 rounds
2. 29 rounds, or nearly so, as movement and position dictats.
3. 2 times.

Now tell me, if that fighter loses one swing, and that wizard loses one Magic Missile, have they lost equal opportunities?

Before you tell me "yeah, but they won't be level 1 for long!" consider this:

How many Meteor Swarms can a level 17 wizard have prepared? What if he also prepared a Quickened Teleport today?

Answer: Just one.

So yeah, maybe that 17th level wizard won't care much if he's trying to cast Magic Missle or even Lightning Bolt while under the effect of Fear, and he loses those spells.

But he surely will miss losing his one Meteor Swarm, his single best and most powerful attack of the day.

And I guarantee you that if the fighter, under the effect of fear, misses his 4 hasted Vital Striking Power Attacks with his Sonic Flaming Burst Vorpal falchion this round, well, he will still get another 4 next round. And the round after that.

It's not equal.

Losing your best ability and then not being able to use it anymore for the rest of the day is never equal to losing an action that you can try to repeat 1 round later.

Not equal at all.

1) Why, oh why, are you casting Magic Missile? Evocation spells are the lose. They will always do less damage per round, let alone damage per encounter, than their non-caster counterparts. You should be taking spells that last over the entire encounter or spells that are game changers for the encounter. (Think Buffs like Enlarge Person for your meleeist or Color Spray which can shut down a low level encounter)

2) At level 1 casters are only 5% less likely to hit than their full BAB counterparts and just as likely to hit as their 3/4 BAB non-caster counterparts. If you account for the fact that PfRPG allows them to cast an unlimited number of level 0 spells, and gives several bloodlines and schools ranged or melee touch attack at will powers, casters might be more effective when it comes to damaging enemies than their melee counterparts. Did you assume PfRPG rules when you wrote up these hypothetical examples?

3) If you are a 17th level Wizard who memorizes Meteor Swarm as their sole 9th level spell then you need to be sent back to the tower for a tactics refresher. If you are telling me the other 42 spell slots plus the Arcane Bond ability to pull out any spell you can cast don't balance well against the single SA a Fighter will be reduced to in most rounds... well then I just don't know what to say, other than to invite houstonerek and Kirth in here to give you an earful on the subject.

4) Quick Edit: Rounds are still rounds and you only get so many per day. It sucks just as much to miss with all of your physical attacks as it does to have a spell misfire. The total impact might seem higher, especially in the example given, only because some spells are simply more powerful than anything a non-caster can ever hope to accomplish. Note: Meteor Swarm probably isn't one of those spells...


DM_Blake wrote:
This thread is getting side-tracked into Casting Defensively.

I think defensive casting is a fair topic for this thread. The presumption I made when posting this thread is that the community seems to be heavily opposed to anything that increases the chances for or likelihood of a caster losing a spell. The new defensive casting rules seem to fit right in line with that discussion.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Matt Rathbun wrote:

1) Why, oh why, are you casting Magic Missile? Evocation spells are the lose. They will always do less damage per round, let alone damage per encounter, than their non-caster counterparts. You should be taking spells that last over the entire encounter or spells that are game changers for the encounter. (Think Buffs like Enlarge Person for your meleeist or Color Spray which can shut down a low level encounter)

2) At level 1 casters are only 5% less likely to hit than their full BAB counterparts and just as likely to hit as their 3/4 BAB non-caster counterparts. If you account for the fact that PfRPG allows them to cast an unlimited number of level 0 spells, and gives several bloodlines and schools ranged or melee touch attack at will powers, casters might be more effective when it comes to damaging enemies than their melee counterparts. Did you assume PfRPG rules when you wrote up these hypothetical examples?

3) If you are a 17th level Wizard who memorizes Meteor Swarm as their sole 9th level spell then you need to be sent back to the tower for a tactics refresher. If you are telling me the other 42 spell slots plus the Arcane Bond ability to pull out any spell you can cast don't balance well against the single SA a Fighter will be reduced to in most rounds... well then I just don't know what to say, other than to invite houstonerek and Kirth in here to give you an earful on the subject.

This is completely uncalled for. This is an attack on a style of play that some players may prefer. There is no "right" or "wrong" spell choice for a spellcaster. It's all player preference.

Believe it or not, YOUR way of playing a spellcaster is not the ONLY way (or necessarily the BEST way) of playing a spellcaster.

This post discredits any points you may have made previously as it labels you as someone who believes there is only one right way to do anything (YOUR way), inherently discrediting anyone else's opinion.

I now see this thread you started in a new light, and regret wasting my time posting to this thread.

Good Day, Sir.


Wow, this has come to the point where I think you're simply trolling to see how many times you'll get me to respond to you provocations.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
1) There are rules quoted that support the 8 hour theory.

Nope. Not a one. I've shown you why this is true. You refuse to see.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
2) There is a FAQ quoted that supports the 8 hour theory.

Nope. I admit, the FAQ is vague and can be mininterpreted, but I've shown you the FAI (FAQ As Intended) interpretation that is completely in line with the core books, and you prefer your interpretation that completely destroys all that is written in core. It seems to me that only one of us is out on a limb here (hint: not me).

Matt Rathbun wrote:
3) There are no rules quoted that support the 24 hour theory.

And yet I have quoted ten places where this is clearly stated in no uncertain terms. Compared to the zero that you've presented.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
4) There are no FAQs quoted that support the 24 hour theory.

There was no need for it. There are no FAQs that say an ordinary medium longsword does 1d8 damage. There are no FAQs that say a Human is size Medium. There are no FAQs that say dragons have wings. In fact, there is no FAQ entry for anything that is obvious, just like there is no FAQ entry for daily spell preparation.

Oh, wait, there are FAQ entries that support daily preparation. For clerics. Apparently some people were cofused on cleric rules and the FAQ cleared it up - in support of daily prepararation.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
5) The logic of the thought experiment was conceded.

Which logic? That if you have a rule, and then you have a magic item that specifically states that while using this item you can ignore that one specific rule?

Yeah, that's been conceded since, oh, I don't know, maybe sometime in the mid-1970s more or less?

Having one magic item break one related rule does not give carte blanche for every spellcaster, with or without the item, to ignore all the rest of the related rules. It's preposterous to believe otherwise.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
PS: Seriously done with this. I'm off to Necro some older posts about the 15 minute day to try and shove this thread back on track.

Because you've been proven thoroughly wrong and are out of ureleated, misinterpreted, and fallacious logic to cling to your faulty supposition?

Sorry, but the evidence is all against you. All of it. Not trying to be cruel here, or vindictive, but you made an incorrect assumption and you've been shown that neither the RAW nor the FAQ nor any kind of application of sound logic supports your belief. I'm sorry that that upsets you, but it's time for you to pony up some real evidence or concede the point.


Matt Rathbun wrote:

1) Why, oh why, are you casting Magic Missile? Evocation spells are the lose. They will always do less damage per round, let alone damage per encounter, than their non-caster counterparts. You should be taking spells that last over the entire encounter or spells that are game changers for the encounter. (Think Buffs like Enlarge Person for your meleeist or Color Spray which can shut down a low level encounter)

2) At level 1 casters are only 5% less likely to hit than their full BAB counterparts and just as likely to hit as their 3/4 BAB non-caster counterparts. If you account for the fact that PfRPG allows them to cast an unlimited number of level 0 spells, and gives several bloodlines and schools ranged or melee touch attack at will powers, casters might be more effective when it comes to damaging enemies than their melee counterparts. Did you assume PfRPG rules when you wrote up these hypothetical examples?

3) If you are a 17th level Wizard who memorizes Meteor Swarm as their sole 9th level spell then you need to be sent back to the tower for a tactics refresher. If you are telling me the other 42 spell slots plus the Arcane Bond ability to pull out any spell you can cast don't balance well against the single SA a Fighter will be reduced to in most rounds... well then I just don't know what to say, other than to invite houstonerek and Kirth in here to give you an earful on the subject.

Tell me how any of this matters?

My point is still made. At any level, no matter what spell the caster prepares, losing his best spells robs him of something he can only do a couple times a day, a few times at most.

Arguing that my example uses sub-par spell selection is tangental to the point, and in no way does it refute the point.

Matt Rathbun wrote:
4) Quick Edit: Rounds are still rounds and you only get so many per day. It sucks just as much to miss with all of your physical attacks as it does to have a spell misfire. The total impact might seem higher, especially in the example given, only because some spells are simply more powerful than anything a non-caster can ever hope to accomplish. Note: Meteor Swarm probably isn't one of those spells...

Now this is true. A fighter missing for his entire round sucks. A mage losing a spell sucks. The difference is, the mage very very quickly runs out of those spells, at which point he either falls back on weaker spells or falls back on his crossbow, his weakest option of all. But the fighter doesn't; he never runs out of his primary combat options while he is alive. Spellcasters run out their primary combat options at the drop of a hat - adding new rules to make them run out even faster is just cruel and unusual punishment to the casters, and to the rest of the party that suffers for having their casters out of spells.


Larry Lichman wrote:
This is completely uncalled for. This is an attack on a style of play that some players may prefer. There is no "right" or "wrong" spell choice for a spellcaster. It's all player preference. Believe it or not, YOUR way of playing a spellcaster is not the ONLY way (or necessarily the BEST way) of playing a spellcaster. This post discredits any points you may have made previously as it labels you as someone who believes there is only one right way to do anything (YOUR way), inherently discrediting anyone else's opinion. I now see this thread you started in a new light, and...

Fair enough. Sorry to have offended you.

However, it isn't really fair to discredit my positions by posting examples filled with optimized meleeists and sub-optimized casters. What I meant to imply was that a caster who is taking direct damage spells is less likely to be effective and more likely to feel slighted by the loss of a spell, than an optimized caster who is getting the most out of all of their available powers. My point was to point out DM_Blake's hyperbole, and demonstrate that you can be effective in two encounters even if you only have two spells, rather than disparage how anyone plays the game. Again, I apologize to anyone who may have been offended, but I felt the need to respond to the inherently misleading example of caster power that was provided.


Larry Lichman wrote:
Matt Rathbun wrote:

1) Why, oh why, are you casting Magic Missile? Evocation spells are the lose. They will always do less damage per round, let alone damage per encounter, than their non-caster counterparts. You should be taking spells that last over the entire encounter or spells that are game changers for the encounter. (Think Buffs like Enlarge Person for your meleeist or Color Spray which can shut down a low level encounter)

2) At level 1 casters are only 5% less likely to hit than their full BAB counterparts and just as likely to hit as their 3/4 BAB non-caster counterparts. If you account for the fact that PfRPG allows them to cast an unlimited number of level 0 spells, and gives several bloodlines and schools ranged or melee touch attack at will powers, casters might be more effective when it comes to damaging enemies than their melee counterparts. Did you assume PfRPG rules when you wrote up these hypothetical examples?

3) If you are a 17th level Wizard who memorizes Meteor Swarm as their sole 9th level spell then you need to be sent back to the tower for a tactics refresher. If you are telling me the other 42 spell slots plus the Arcane Bond ability to pull out any spell you can cast don't balance well against the single SA a Fighter will be reduced to in most rounds... well then I just don't know what to say, other than to invite houstonerek and Kirth in here to give you an earful on the subject.

This is completely uncalled for. This is an attack on a style of play that some players may prefer. There is no "right" or "wrong" spell choice for a spellcaster. It's all player preference.

Believe it or not, YOUR way of playing a spellcaster is not the ONLY way (or necessarily the BEST way) of playing a spellcaster.

This post discredits any points you may have made previously as it labels you as someone who believes there is only one right way to do anything (YOUR way), inherently discrediting anyone else's opinion.

I now see this thread you started in a new light, and regret wasting my time posting to this thread.

Good Day, Sir.

His point is valid, though not salient to the discussion at hand.

The spells I chose are marginally viable for an evoker build, but it's fairly common knowledge that there are ways to build a mage to be more effective than relying on evocation.

I chose them because they are easily reconginzeable by all D&D gamers and clearly combat-oriented spells, and in no way should that choice reflect any preference of mine or the gaming community at large that these are the most useful spells a mage could use. I tend to think they are often far from it. I could have just as well chosen Color Spray and Gate, or Grease and Prismatic Sphere.

None of that changes the point of my post. None of which is at all salient to the discussion of how many spells a spellcaster has.


Matt Rathbun wrote:
Larry Lichman wrote:
This is completely uncalled for. This is an attack on a style of play that some players may prefer. There is no "right" or "wrong" spell choice for a spellcaster. It's all player preference. Believe it or not, YOUR way of playing a spellcaster is not the ONLY way (or necessarily the BEST way) of playing a spellcaster. This post discredits any points you may have made previously as it labels you as someone who believes there is only one right way to do anything (YOUR way), inherently discrediting anyone else's opinion. I now see this thread you started in a new light, and...

Fair enough. Sorry to have offended you.

However, it isn't really fair to discredit my positions by posting examples filled with optimized meleeists and sub-optimized casters. What I meant to imply was that a caster who is taking direct damage spells is less likely to be effective and more likely to feel slighted by the loss of a spell, than an optimized caster who is getting the most out of all of their available powers. My point was to point out DM_Blake's hyperbole, and demonstrate that you can be effective in two encounters even if you only have two spells, rather than disparage how anyone plays the game. Again, I apologize to anyone who may have been offended, but I felt the need to respond to the inherently misleading example of caster power that was provided.

Does this mean that casters who choose crappy spells should be more upset with being unable to cast them because some game mechanic made the caster lose the crappy spells?

And a caster who choses excellent spells should be more agreeable with being unable to cast them?

Am I reading this right?

Edit: It's your arguments like this one that results in me becoming more and more convinced this is just a brilliant trolling effort and I am playing the patsy by responding so much. Chances are, you were convinced I am right 20 posts ago and now you're just provoking and sitting back laughing in trollish glee.


Larry Lichman wrote:


This is completely uncalled for. This is an attack on a style of play that some players may prefer.

It is an 'attack' on a style of play that some players prefer. However he does go through some bother to actually quote some facts and back up his assertion.

Quote:


There is no "right" or "wrong" spell choice for a spellcaster. It's all player preference.

Believe it or not, YOUR way of playing a spellcaster is not the ONLY way (or necessarily the BEST way) of playing a spellcaster.

His way may not be the best way indeed, but certainly we can agree that there are indeed ways to play a spellcaster 'wrong'. Once you establish that, hopefully you can agree that there are some ways that are more wrong than other ways.

He may have expressed his point with some excess condescension, but he did seem to basically present some facts to rebut a previous arguments in a civilized fashion.

Quote:


This post discredits any points you may have made previously as it labels you as someone who believes there is only one right way to do anything (YOUR way), inherently discrediting anyone else's opinion.

I now see this thread you started in a new light, and...

This portion is devoid of logic. Surely any points he made previously would stand on their own merits regardless of who expressed them. Truth and logic stand on their own.

Anyway, as expressed in the "Optimisation" thread, I don't really have a lot of tolerance in my games for pushy people who are overly arrogant about their own style of play.

Surely this discussion board is indeed the venue for basically sane, rational discourse on the relative merits of different playstyles? If not here, then where?

Bottom line : Chill out dude, its just the internet.

Shadow Lodge

I just don't see it that way. It is pretty straight forward question. Can this happen, (for example in this case)? Yes that can happen. (minus and flowery language or irrelevant parts).

If you say that the answer is only for the second part

"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."

It still varifies the exact same thing. Can I do this? Yes you can do that.

Also, your argument that daily must and can only mean 24 hours as per court of law. Ever hear of week that means less than 7 consecutive days from Sunday to Saturday? How about Business Week, that literally can mean Mon - Fri (most common), Mon – Sat (second most common), Sun - Sat, Sun - Fri, or whatever, AND may or may not include federal, local, and worldwide holidays/events? In a court of law, it is not defined, except to what is relevant to the case in hand. Fiscal year?

I find this interesting, so I'm not just being a jerk. I know for a fact that it is allowed in RPGA and the core rules, so like you all, unless I see a specific rule that says no. Likewise, from my perspective, I have defended my position, showing the rules that confirm it, while the other side has simply failed to bring any evidence forward to contradict it. I'm still waiting on Day must and can only mean a 24 hour period, mostly, as that seems to be the only thing the argument for only one rest hinges on.

Secondly, I don't see it as imbalanced, between different casters or casters and non-casters. It is different. But Divine Casters have the advantage that they do not require any rest. That means if the group is captured and forced to walk all day/night, if they get an hour break, the divine casters can regain their spells, while the Arcane casters cannot, (granted they use the break to pray).


So back to the issue at hand:

Does the game have a spell failure mechanic?

Yes, Several of them.
1. Spell failure from armor
2. Spell failure from failing defensive casting
3. Spell failure due to concentration breaking
4. Spell failure due to missing with the spell
5. Spell failure due to spell resistance
6. Spell failure due to successful save throws

Are these accepted by the community?

Yes, these are considered valid normal parts of the game that deserve to be part of the game and are indeed needed.

So with both of these answered, I have a new question: Why do we even have this thread (nevermind the fact it has gone on for 4 pages now)?

Shadow Lodge

Well, armor only applies if the class can't normally cast spells in armor. Most spellcasterse can, at least limitedly.

I personally don't see any need whatsoever for more restrictions on spells.


Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matt Rathbun wrote:


1) Why, oh why, are you casting Magic Missile? Evocation spells are the lose. They will always do less damage per round, let alone damage per encounter, than their non-caster counterparts. You should be...

First, there's nothing wrong with casting Magic Missile. It has saved the party numerous times when nothing else could hit it because the barbarian had a +16 to hit, but the mob had a 34 AC buffed.

Personally I prefer a mix of spells. Sometimes a well placed fireball or lightning bolt can turn the tide of battle.

That said, most spells have inherent ways to fail and they are resources. Really if we're going to start talking about spell failure, then we should start talking about resource pool failure in general.

Would you support randomly loosing barbarian rage points, or monk ki, or cleric channels, or paladin lays-on-hands?

Casters aren't the only ones with resource pools, but they are the only ones who can suffer failure. Adding more failure possibilities without examining other per-day resources would introduce an aspect of potential unbalance.

Yes spells are powerful, but so is a raging barbarian fighter with multiple feats that allow him or her to lay waste to the battlefield.

I personally believe that there doesn't need to be another way to loose spell slots. Personally I'd like it if there were no ways to lose spell slots, just actions.

Yes barbarians can lose their weapon. They might have a backup. Wizards can loose their spell books, bards their instrument, and clerics their healing wands. Everyone has tools and implements. They all have something to loose. And yes everyone has hit points. The question is what do classes have that's uniquely theirs and how does that balance against other classes that also have that feature.


Beckett wrote:
Ever hear of week that means less than 7 consecutive days from Sunday to Saturday? How about Business Week, that literally can mean Mon - Fri (most common), Mon – Sat (second most common), Sun - Sat, Sun - Fri, or whatever, AND may or may not include federal, local, and worldwide holidays/events? In a court of law, it is not defined, except to what is relevant to the case in hand. Fiscal year?

Yep, I've heard of those.

And everyone who ever says "Week" and means "Business Week" or "Work Week" always clarifies what they mean. If someone says "That will take 3 weeks to finish" then they always mean 21 days. Even if they meant "business week".

If you take your car to a mechanic and he says "Come back in 3 weeks", would you come back in 21 days or 15? Would it even matter to you if he meant "7-day week" or "business week"? That mechanic might work all 21 days on your car. Or he might only work Monday through Friday. Either way, 3 weeks means 21 days from now.

If you apply for a job, and the boss says "We work all week long", does he mean 7-day week or business week? What's the context? True, in this example, he might mean either one - I recommend you ask him before accepting the job.

If the guys who wrote the core books had meant "Business Day" or "Rest-period Day" or something to that effect, then the onus is on them to clarify that meaning.

Otherwise, everyone will take "Day" to mean, well, a day.

Or so I thought until this thread came along.

Shadow Lodge

Maybe they are using recharge magic? If this is the case, I would have almost no problems with the chages.


I will restate and reword this again since it got ignored before:

I do think the intention was to have spells prepped once within a 24 hour period(RAI), but RAW allows double preps daily.

hour 1: wizard wakes up and prepares spells

rules state that any spells cast within the last 8 hours count against the daily limit-->this means spells cast after this time period do not count against the daily limit, so all the cast has to do is wait.

I think this limit is put in place to prevent spell from always being available, but at the same time if the party is in a bind they can get some spells back.


Abraham spalding wrote:

So back to the issue at hand:

Does the game have a spell failure mechanic?

Yes, Several of them.
1. Spell failure from armor
2. Spell failure from failing defensive casting
3. Spell failure due to concentration breaking
4. Spell failure due to missing with the spell
5. Spell failure due to spell resistance
6. Spell failure due to successful save throws

Are these accepted by the community?

Yes, these are considered valid normal parts of the game that deserve to be part of the game and are indeed needed.

So with both of these answered, I have a new question: Why do we even have this thread (nevermind the fact it has gone on for 4 pages now)?

The OP posted in response to the Fear thread. People there, myself included, were against adding additional houserules that created more chances for a spellcaster to lose spells - specifically the proposed new mechanic for fear that included flat Spell Failure % rolls that scaled with the intensity of the fear.

I felt that enough is enough.

I accept every mechanic you've listed there. I just don't think we need anymore.

It started as an opinion, but like this thread here, people began taking things out entirely of context and regurgitating fallacial opposition to misinterpreted opinions.

So the OP created this thread to find out why some people opposed adding new spell failure mechanics to those we already have.

And then it turned into what it turned into.

Everyone's just lucky that this Tarrasque had a Pizza buffet last night or there would be lots of biting going on...


DM_Blake wrote:

Tell me how any of this matters?

My point is still made. At any level, no matter what spell the caster prepares, losing his best spells robs him of something he can only do a couple times a day, a few times at most.

Arguing that my example uses sub-par spell selection is tangental to the point, and in no way does it refute the point.

The problem with your argument is that you assume that the loss of a spell, especially their most potent spell, leaves the caster so much weaker than their non-caster counterparts that it is unfair and an unbalanced mechanic.

The point I was making is that your assumption regarding caster power is false. My example makes the argument that at low levels casters are just as potent as non-casters despite the fact that they may only have two spell slots to work with and will face more than 2 rounds that day.

In your low level example the Wizard gets to Fire 1! Fire 2! and then crossbow; somehow also implying that resorting to the crossbow is useless.

In my low level example the tactical Wizard uses their first spell to enlarge the party Fighter making quick work of the encounter and still taking the time to lob a few acid orbs or ray's of frost or if he is lucky enough to be a Conjurer acid darts into the fray for good fun - most likely with a better chance to hit than the rest of the party. Then in the second encounter disabling most of the enemies with a color spray letting non-casters cleanup what little is left.

Note how in my example the Wizard doesn't have to rely just on casting spells and certainly isn't relying on just their highest slots? Tactics matter, spell selection matters, with them the Wizard can be more than the sum of their slots. Even if either of the spells in my example gets disrupted the Wizard still has a lot of effective options and that is just at level 1. Not to mention that the Fighter really isn't that much more effective than a Wizard who decides to simply use their crossbow and not bother with the whole casting thing that day.

At higher levels the balance only tips in the Wizard's favor. There are spells at all levels that when used tactically can dramatically shift the outcome of an encounter. As in Pax's post, canny players don't need all of their highest spell slots available for each encounter in order to be effective. At 17th level the Wizard has so many things to choose from it is hard to see how they aren't at least balanced against non-casters even if the Wizard does lose a few spells here and there.

DM_Blake wrote:
Now this is true. A fighter missing for his entire round sucks. A mage losing a spell sucks. The difference is, the mage very very quickly runs out of those spells, at which point he either falls back on weaker spells or falls back on his crossbow, his weakest option of all. But the fighter doesn't; he never runs out of his primary combat options while he is alive. Spellcasters run out their primary combat options at the drop of a hat - adding new rules to make them run out even faster is just cruel and unusual punishment to the casters, and to the rest of the party that suffers for having their casters out of spells.

1) Quickly runs out of spells? See my paragraphs above.

2) That "while he(sic) is alive" bit is the killer - pun possibly intended. My point was that any party will experience only a certain number of combat rounds per day. Theoretically never enough for a higher level caster to run out of spell slots and hopefully not enough for the non-caster to run out of hit points. Since the number of rounds played is roughly fixed, the loss of any one round even including the loss of a spell isn't any more damaging than any other character's loss of any one round. The idea that a non-caster's primary ability is unlimited is a fallacy. It is limited by the number of opportunities they will have to use it that day which will always work out to be roughly the number of times the casters in their party will be able to cast a spell. Thus losing a spell for any reason is no worse than losing an action for any reason.

3) Losing a spell doesn't make you run out of spells any faster than usual, it just means the spell didn't work. You are ultimately limited by the number of spells you can cast in a round multiplied by the number of rounds you will experience in a day. There is no mechanical way to accelerate the use of those spell slots.

4) Parties and encounters should be balanced so that casters do not have to nuke/nova every round of every day in order to succeed. If that were the case why would anyone play anything other than a caster?

PS: I am not suggesting that spell loss should be common. I am not suggesting that it does not carry a significant impact that must be considered when balancing a mechanic. I am saying it should at least be on the table when discussing a new mechanic, as a way to balance casters vs non-casters.


Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matt Rathbun wrote:

The problem with your argument is that you assume that the loss of a spell, especially their most potent spell, leaves the caster so much weaker than their non-caster counterparts that it is unfair and an unbalanced mechanic.

The point I was making is that your assumption regarding caster power is false. My example makes the argument that at low levels casters are just as potent as non-casters despite the fact that they may only have two spell slots to work with and will face more than 2 rounds that day.

In your low level example the Wizard gets to Fire 1! Fire 2! and then crossbow; somehow also implying that resorting to the crossbow is useless.

In my low level example the tactical Wizard uses their first spell to enlarge the party Fighter making quick work of the encounter and still taking the time to lob a few acid orbs or ray's of frost or if he is lucky enough to be a Conjurer acid darts into the fray for good fun - most likely with a better chance to hit than the rest of the party. Then in the second encounter disabling most of the enemies with a color spray letting non-casters cleanup what little is left.

Note how in my example the Wizard doesn't have to rely just on casting spells and certainly isn't relying on just their highest slots? Tactics matter, spell selection matters, with them the Wizard can be more than the sum of their slots. Even if either of the spells in my example gets disrupted the Wizard still has a lot of effective options and that is just at level 1. Not to mention that the Fighter really isn't that much more effective than a Wizard who decides to simply use their crossbow and not bother with the whole casting...

In four combats a day a level one wizard is going to be out of spells at some point during the day and that's even if every spell they choose is a combat spell (and not say alarm).

At the mid levels you're going to have issues with the fact that you need to reserve slots for non-combat spells. I typically have about 30-50% of my spells as non-combat spells in the mid-levels.

At the upper end which doesn't receive nearly as much play as the lower level the tide finally turns, but in general the system breaks down at this level.

But having played a lot of different classes I can tell you that only the level one wizard felt as useless after they had expended their daily allotment.

Wizards are a different type of play. It is important to realize though at lower levels you're going to perform poorly compared to the unlimited resource types.

However, all that said, there isn't a pre-determined finite number of rounds in a given day of combat. It's seriously going to depend on what people do and I've been in plenty of combats that nearly drained me of resources as they reached into round 40. And that was combat 1 of 4 that day.

If your combats are only lasting a few rounds than your DM is probably going easy on what you could actually handle. But that certainly hasn't been my experience.

151 to 200 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