I actually appreciate a "This is RAW" reply more then just an opinion. Especially on something like this.
|
I actually appreciate a "This is RAW" reply more then just an opinion. Especially on something like this.
I think the big problem here, was how encompassing rules in certain sections in the book are. Now, I happen to disagree with Zurai on a number of things, this much is clear to anyone who has seen us go back and forth.
I also happen to disagree with his fundamental assumption that a spell automatically implies the caster is breaking some rule of the game. The spells are very neatly and (most times) concisely worded as to their parameters. They do not follow the normal rules because they have their own rules. What I'm getting at, is that spells aren't breaking any rules, they're merely offering a second alternative to whats written. You can choose to do something "the old fashioned way" (I.E. Yourself) or you can use this spell to accomplish the same task.
Doing the latter causes a number of conditions to be inflicted upon you in most cases. (I.E. provoking for spell casting, different stat allotment to be able to cast, using up spell slots as a finite resource where having the appropriate skill is without end to uses.)
With this in mind, I think the lesson we learned today is that no, the game is not built on the assumption that everything breaks the rules unless implicitly stated.
However, I know someone will bring up reminder text that runs rampant within the rules. This is because in the past certain players have tried repeatedly to abuse certain circumstances. The rules are written to try and clarify things so such abuses aren't made common place. Reminder text in those instances is merely that, a reminder that there is a hard cap or rule in place, that you cannot break. A limitation that most people (I.E. Those who were arguing against a cap) would assume does not apply because "the rules don't say otherwise".
However, that then gets into the argument that "The rules don't say I can't pull a bazooka out of my back pocket and kill the BBEG with a tactical nuke."
I would like to avoid that silliness if possible. Lets just all agree to disagree on the factors in play here and realize the morale of the story;
If the rules don't say you can, better to ere with caution and assume you can't.
And for what it's worth, Divine bond works with any weapon picked up, even if its not master crafted. This means that Divine Bond allows a Paladin who lacks his normal gear to remain effective, even in a lose-lose situation. This gives it a tactical flexibility beyond the horse, which is unusable in far more situations than being level 20 and having a +5 weapon.
YMMV
No you have not. The books says clearly what the max is, you have yet to show anything where it says you may ignore or exceed this, nothing.
If you can show me where it says those spells/abilitys may ignore the normal rules for weapons please do show me. All you have is "well it never says we must use the normal rules" which is not a good argument.
I would agree you are probably right about raw, the problem is the ability does not make a lot of sense with that ruling. To include the cap makes this ability's usefulness degrade rapidly as you go up in level and get better weapons. Whether or not that is raw, it is not good design in my opinion.
I think that is why people are looking for some other explanation.
If the rules don't say you can, better to ere with caution and assume you can't.
Well, actually I think it's the exact opposite. As it is in life. If there is no sign saying I can't park, then I can. If there is no sign saying that I cannot Smoke, then I can. So, if there is no LAW saying I cannot do one thing I certainly can.
That's been the case in ALL RPGs so far and in everything else for that matter.So the part that states that it's ON TOP of any bonus the weapon already has, clears up things the most.
And as much as it says that the RAW is writen differently, it ceratinly is not. In that specific part of the divine bond it says how it works, and there is no need to specify that it overhides the item creation rules, cause it already does.
Zurai stated specific effects that does not say anything, so, if you are going to use RAW(by the way u see it anyway) you should use the examples he said as he wrote.
BTW an ability that becomes useless as you level is ridiculous.
yes it says it adds on top(meaning it can be used on weapons that are already magical}, but does not say you may exceed the max. Which is pointless to keep going over as we have been told for sure the max stands, you can not exceed it.
And the power is never useless, use it's less useful if your gonna blow 200k on a weapon but most folks do not blow 200k on a single weapon. This allows you to save money really, and allows you to adapt your weapon as needed, that is never useless
Eh, funny thing is that when the Epic rules come out for Magical Itens, this nigh useless ability at high level (considering you have a good weapon), becomes oh so powerful again. So, why cap it now, when later on it will be for nought?
The rules are fine as written.
Yes they are. Interpretations however, are not.
And even if Epic rules do come out, I would imagine that breaking the pre-Epic limit would require an epic-level Paladin to do so.
I did not understand what you meant here however.
And even if Epic rules do come out, I would imagine that breaking the pre-Epic limit would require an epic-level Paladin to do so.I did not understand what you meant here however.
A 21th level paladin should not be limited to +10 enhancement cap when using divine bond, I suppose.
If the rules don't say you can, better to ere with caution and assume you can't.
Of course. The rules don't say I can pull out a tac nuke and blow up the planet, so I can't.
The rules do, however, say that I can add +6 enchantment to any weapon if I'm a 20th level Paladin.
The rules do say that I can turn a +1 dancing vorpal longsword into a +5 dancing vorpal longsword by casting greater magic weapon.
All due respect to Mr. Frost and Paizo, but I cannot and will not accept that this was an intentional change to the rules and the intent of the rules when the rules text has not changed and it creates massive flaws through the entire system. To clarify, GMW would make that longsword into a +5 one in 3.5, and neither GMW, magic weapon which it is based on, nor the magic weapon creation rules have changed in any way related to this rule in the transition between the two games.
Furthermore, using this ruling as precedent, the entire game breaks because the rules work on an assumption that more specific rules automatically override more general rules without having to spend a paragraph saying exactly which rules they override. Forcing that paragraph to exist to make the specific rule work means that about half of the Core Rulebook is meaningless text and NONE of the 3.5 books that Pathfinder is intended to work with actually work with Pathfinder.
A 21th level paladin should not be limited to +10 enhancement cap when using divine bond, I suppose.And even if Epic rules do come out, I would imagine that breaking the pre-Epic limit would require an epic-level Paladin to do so.I did not understand what you meant here however.
To make it clear, I'm not talking about a 21st Level Paladin. I'm talking about an Epic weapon. Any +11 weapon would be able to use the Divine Bound ability to it's full extent, since they have no "cap".
And it's just silly, cause when I have the +10 weapon I cannot use it, and when I get the +11 WHAM! it's +17.
most folks do not blow 200k on a single weapon.
Speak for yourself. If I have a 20th level character that uses a weapon, you better believe it's going to be a +10.
I definitely appreciate the clarification of the rules from Joshua. That's what I was waiting for, and it makes sense to me.
It doesn't make Divine Bond useless, but if you have a very powerful weapon it makes it less useful to be sure. But what about for backup weapons? Perfectly useful there.
Another neat idea is to allow it to "temporarily replace" existing abilities that the weapon holds. So if you want to replace one ability for another you could do so without bypassing the total +10 weapon enhancement rule. That would have to be houseruled, but it's an option I will consider for my game. /salute!
The rules do say that I can turn a +1 dancing vorpal longsword into a +5 dancing vorpal longsword by casting greater magic weapon.
With this clarification, apparently not ):
To make it clear, I'm not talking about a 21st Level Paladin. I'm talking about an Epic weapon. Any +11 weapon would be able to use the Divine Bound ability to it's full extent, since they have no "cap".
And it's just silly, cause when I have the +10 weapon I cannot use it, and when I get the +11 WHAM! it's +17.
The +10 cap is a general rule for all magic weapons in the game. Before it reaches epic levels, it applies to all weapons.
If you bother to houserule then don't apply a double standard, Or the cap applies to all weapons or it applies to none.So by the rules you cannot have a +11 weapon in the game until it reaches level 21. And then the paladin can take it to +17 since the +10 cap should be gone.
And also remember that we're speculating here, there are no written rules for epic play in PF yet.
So by the rules you cannot have a +11 weapon in the game until it reaches level 21.
No. Epic weapons are incredibly expensive, but they can be acquired pre-level 21 (in 3.5, anyway, which is all we have to go on for Epic rules at the moment). According to the Epic Level Handbook, a +6 longsword costs 720,000 gold. According to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, a level 20 character has 880,000 gold in gear.
EDIT: Also, to be precise, a +1 flaming dancing vorpal longsword (+11 total enchantment) is not an Epic weapon and does not use the Epic pricing. It would cost 242,000, well within the limit for a 20th level character.
So by the rules you cannot have a +11 weapon in the game until it reaches level 21.No. Epic weapons are incredibly expensive, but they can be acquired pre-level 21 (in 3.5, anyway, which is all we have to go on for Epic rules at the moment).
Sorry, I edited while you were posting. Just to clarify this point.
If we allow epic weapons into the game before epic levels aren't we applying a double standard?
edit: What I mean is, once one weapon in the game gets over +10 what keeps the other ones to become epic also? If you can and are willing to pay the price, of course.
Note my edit. A +11 equivalent weapon that has an enhancement bonus lower than +6 is not an Epic weapon. It does not use the Epic rules and does not use the Epic prices. It is allowed (in 3.5).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The rules do, however, say that I can add +6 enchantment to any weapon if I'm a 20th level Paladin.
They sure do. They also say you can't exceed a total of +10 worth of enhancement bonuses and special abilities with a maximum of +5 worth of enhancement bonus. How *you* choose to run it in *your* game is entirely up to you, though.
The rules do say that I can turn a +1 dancing vorpal longsword into a +5 dancing vorpal longsword by casting greater magic weapon.
Greater magic weapon says,
This spell functions like magic weapon, except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.
Nowhere in there does it say you can exceed the maximum +10 enhancement bonus. Again, how you choose to run this in your game is entirely up to you, but that's the RAW.
Should we (and more likely, "when we") release epic rules, I'm sure we'll clarify further in that rules set how weapon enhancement works beyond level 20 since, (and this is actually my opinion now) the math of 3.5 breaks down significantly post-20th level and those types of adjustments need to be made.
I want to point out once more (and perhaps I'm being overzealous in pointing this out repeatedly) however you or your GM choose to interpret and run the game is entirely up to you. House rules have been a staple of this game since I started playing with the red box--heck, I remember starting a 3.0 game back in 2002 or so where the GM was convinced a bunch of his house rules were canon and it took a significant perusal of the book to show him they weren't. The GM is and should always be the final arbiter regardless of what us nerd designers here in house think. ;-)
Nowhere in there does it say you can exceed the maximum +10 enhancement bonus.
It doesn't have to. It's the more specific rule. Specific rules trump general rules. That's the way the entire system works.
The bardic ability Lore Master doesn't have to specifically say, "You can take 20 on a Knowledge check once per day even though you can't normally take 20 on Knowledge checks". The "even though..." part is assumed by the rules.
The clerical ability to be proficient with their deity's favored weapon, even if it's exotic, doesn't have to specifically say, "You are proficient with with your deity's favored weapon, even if it is exotic, even though you do not have +1 BAB which is normally required to be proficient with an exotic weapon". The "even though..." part is assumed by the rules.
The animal companion ability to have 3 Intelligence and yet remain an animal doesn't have to specifically say, "Animal companions who raise their Intelligence above 2 are still of the Animal type and do not leave their master, even though Animals are not allowed to have an intelligence score above 2". It's assumed by the rules.
And so on.
Yup. So we failed to add a clarifying line to the paladin's ability that says, "Please note you can never exceed blah blah blah" so that it matches the weapon enhancement limitations in the magic chapter.
I'll see what I can do to make sure that's in the next errata.
Although Jason just had a good point in our discussion: a clarifying line of this nature would be better in the magic weapons section that says, "No special abilities, spells, etc can ever increase a weapon above ... etc."
It's likely to appear in the next errata.
Yup. So we failed to add a clarifying line to the paladin's ability that says, "Please note you can never exceed blah blah blah" so that it matches the weapon enhancement limitations in the magic chapter.
I'll see what I can do to make sure that's in the next errata.
OK, at least we see eye to eye on the implications of this issue, then. I don't like the ruling, but as always it can just be house ruled. I was arguing more about the system-wide implications than the specific case (although I still really dislike the effect it has on Paladin weapon choices).
I hope it won't be errataed this way.
I was just shuddering at the thought of our party's paladin at level 20 with his +1 bastard sword of (+9 total enhancements worth of abilities) getting a greater magic weapon cast on it and then popping on +6 more worth of abilities for a grand total of +20 enhancements to his sword.
Regardless of whether you think it's OP or not, what a headache of getting through several rounds of full attacks with that mess. Yargh!
Almost everybody at our table has an iPod Touch and the dice roller app we use provides a history of rolls. You can also make up a dice formula that you want to use for "Smite Evil" and roll it to roll your 10d6+70 damage or whatever.
Almost everybody at our table has an iPod Touch and the dice roller app we use provides a history of rolls. You can also make up a dice formula that you want to use for "Smite Evil" and roll it to roll your 10d6+70 damage or whatever.
Removes... Fun.. from... game...
But, but, but I like rolling 60d6 in a round
Almost everybody at our table has an iPod Touch and the dice roller app we use provides a history of rolls. You can also make up a dice formula that you want to use for "Smite Evil" and roll it to roll your 10d6+70 damage or whatever.Removes... Fun.. from... game...
But, but, but I like rolling 60d6 in a round
Heh, I recall a few games of 2e shadowrun that can so, so close to that
|
|
Heh, I recall a few games of 2e shadowrun that can so, so close to thatAlmost everybody at our table has an iPod Touch and the dice roller app we use provides a history of rolls. You can also make up a dice formula that you want to use for "Smite Evil" and roll it to roll your 10d6+70 damage or whatever.Removes... Fun.. from... game...
But, but, but I like rolling 60d6 in a round
Oh God, Shadowrun...
The only game where:
1) Getting a soda from down the hall requires a rocket launcher.
2) "It seemed a good Idea at the time" is a valid excuse, before during and after the act that precipitated it.
Gods yes, I love that game. You every try SR4? Same game but with a cleaner system. A heartfelt 10 on this end I'll tell ya that
Gods yes, I love that game. You every try SR4? Same game but with a cleaner system. A heartfelt 10 on this end I'll tell ya that
Off-topic: I just started it myself. I like it.
Interested in this, can I get any more pointers in that direction?
|
I cannot see how the stand on having a +10 max hurts this ability. They way I see it, a paladin could have a +4 adamantine Longsword, Warhammer and Trident (to cover all damage types and give you a good sunder) and have the ability to exploit the weakness of every enemy they face. This ability, coupled with the appropriate knowledge skills to know the enemy is VERY powerful
I cannot see how the stand on having a +10 max hurts this ability. They way I see it, a paladin could have a +4 adamantine Longsword, Warhammer and Trident (to cover all damage types and give you a good sunder) and have the ability to exploit the weakness of every enemy they face. This ability, coupled with the appropriate knowledge skills to know the enemy is VERY powerful
It's less powerfull than a +10 sword and a mount.
I cannot see how the stand on having a +10 max hurts this ability. They way I see it, a paladin could have a +4 adamantine Longsword, Warhammer and Trident (to cover all damage types and give you a good sunder) and have the ability to exploit the weakness of every enemy they face. This ability, coupled with the appropriate knowledge skills to know the enemy is VERY powerful
You're forgetting that smite evil overcomes all DR. Paladins don't need that flexibility. Even against non-evil critters, the only common DR they can't overcome with a plain jane +5 weapon is slash/bludgeon/pierce, which aren't terribly common in non-evil foes (the most common creatures with those DRs are undead, which are almost all evil and are extra-smitable) and rarely go above DR 10/* anyway.
I cannot see how the stand on having a +10 max hurts this ability. They way I see it, a paladin could have a +4 adamantine Longsword, Warhammer and Trident (to cover all damage types and give you a good sunder) and have the ability to exploit the weakness of every enemy they face. This ability, coupled with the appropriate knowledge skills to know the enemy is VERY powerfulIt's less powerfull than a +10 sword and a mount.
Not always. Different builds and situations get more mileage from one than from the other.
I prefer the idea of a Paladin being attacked in his home, and using household items to defeat evil.
SPORK OF HOLY, DEMON-BANE, SMITING!
"SPOOOORRRRRKKK!!!"
You mean Runcible Spoon, of course. 'Cause that makes it acceptably fantasy. :)
|
|
I cannot see how the stand on having a +10 max hurts this ability. They way I see it, a paladin could have a +4 adamantine Longsword, Warhammer and Trident (to cover all damage types and give you a good sunder) and have the ability to exploit the weakness of every enemy they face. This ability, coupled with the appropriate knowledge skills to know the enemy is VERY powerfulIt's less powerfull than a +10 sword and a mount.
+4 with the +6 added abilities from the paladin divine bond make +10 effective. You won't ever have a flat +10 sword without being an epic weapon. Also, whose to say you don't have you +4 lance buffed up with divine bond on your mount?
Also, whose to say you don't have you +4 lance buffed up with divine bond on your mount?
Uhh, aside from the fact that you can't have both a Divine Bonded weapon and a useful mount?
Not what we are talking about. You can however keep defending an ability that becomes night useless at higher levels, it's ok.
A fighter's weapon training does not interfere with the cap on weapons, nor does a barbarians rage. Class abilities should be able to work with normal (by wealth estimates) equipement for their character type. Divine Bond does not by raw.
In addition you wont be able to use it in every fight. Should you have a 5th or 6th fight in a day, a +10 weapon is better. It also costs a standard action to activate, something you dont always have to spare. Saying a high level paladin could walk around with a stash of +4 weapons and be just fine is simply not true. He still needs that higher bonus weapon in most cases.
The ability to turn a +4 weapon into a +10 is nice. And is great for managing your backup weapon, but in most games that use standard treasure rules, this ability gets worse as it progresses, not better. That makes no sense at all. At level 5 I can add +1 at level 8 +2, it creeps up from there untill higher levels where the ability gives less of a bonus because wealth tables allow for better weapons. Nothing else does that. No other ability in the game has numerical benefits that scale down. Divine bond does. To me this just isnt right, and wont be the case at my table.
Also, whose to say you don't have you +4 lance buffed up with divine bond on your mount?Uhh, aside from the fact that you can't have both a Divine Bonded weapon and a useful mount?
Sure you can. You use the leadership feat to get a special mount. It works better than anicom
Sure you can. You use the leadership feat to get a special mount. It works better than anicomAlso, whose to say you don't have you +4 lance buffed up with divine bond on your mount?Uhh, aside from the fact that you can't have both a Divine Bonded weapon and a useful mount?
Again, diverging from the issue does nothing to adress it.
Sure you can. You use the leadership feat to get a special mount. It works better than anicom
Sorry, no, you cannot do that. The only example (that I'm aware of) of taking a special mount with the Leadership feat is the Dragonne in the Bonus Bestiary, and it specifically states that you must take it as your animal companion and that you must have an effective druid level for that companion of 10th. Thus, you must have an animal companion (or special mount) in order to take a Dragonne as your cohort, and Paladins who choose the Weapon Spirit version of Divine Bond do not have that.