|
Good so it is not just me with the error...Thought my copy of Adobe was acting up.I'm having the same problem with the missing 'A's. Acrobat Pro 6 (yes I know it's old) and only on the updated APG final playtest. All others work fine. Also getting a message that the NexusSansOT embedded font cannot be extracted (and is being replaced in all the tables by dots). Again, only on the updated APG final playtest pdf. I'm wondering if it might be corrupt embedded fonts.+1
Warning sign from Adobe when opening the PDF:
"Cannot extract the embedded font 'RZXACS+NexusSansOT-Bold. Some characters may not display or print correctly. "I use Windows XP anad Adope pro 7. I have not the latest update. Only on the updated APG final playtest pdf have this problem.
We don't need no stinkin' 'A's!
I'm currently using Adobe Reader 8.2.0 (I know, it's a bit old, but my philosophy with software is: if it works, better stay with old products)
Off-topic - but that is generally REALLY stupid. Especially with bloated and buggy software like Adbobe's that is SERIOUSLY prone to malware/virus attacks.
Well, as I said, it depends if it still works and it gives me no problems.
For example, I had absolutely no problems with AVG Free 8.5; when I had to upgrade it to AVG Free 9.0 (because 8.5 was not supported anymore)... I had to change to Avast, since it froze my PC after a couple of updates.
I often stay away from the latest updates of programs if I can (or at least keep also an older version, just in case) to avoid 'unnoticed errors' which slipped unnoticed and generate bugs (or worse).
Luckily I also kept the previous pdf of the APG, too !
All right, I found an interesting thing about the missing 'A's.
The new PDF, if I highlight and copy-paste the sentence which shows an error (like 'The Alchemist'), gives me this result:
"������&a mp;#56256;� ������&am p;#56256;�����&# 56256;���"
While if I highlight the same sentence on the old version and copy-paste it, it gives this result:
"The Alchemist"
(these are the exact results, I just opened the new and the old file to try it - on a .txt file, the code above shows as squares - one for each text character).
This is even true for the headers that work, like 'Table 1-1 Cavalier'
from the old pdf: "Table 1–1: Cavalier"
from the new pdf: "������&a mp;#56256;��� ������&am p;#56256;� ������&am p;#56256;�����&# 56256;���" (however, this actually visualizes correctly on the pdf itself)
It seems that the revised pdf was written with a different Operating System, and the result scrambled some fonts.
Off-topic - but that is generally REALLY stupid. Especially with bloated and buggy software like Adbobe's that is SERIOUSLY prone to malware/virus attacks.Well, as I said, it depends if it still works and it gives me no problems.
I often stay away from the latest updates of programs if I can (or at least keep also an older version, just in case) to avoid 'unnoticed errors' which slipped unnoticed and generate bugs (or worse).
I feel bad for keeping things a little off-topic, but I'm going to say it anyway. The point is that old versions of Reader often don't work, even when they seem fine. They are full of security vulnerabilities that are constantly being exploited. Adobe is taking a lot of flak in the IT security community for, essentially, having 1995-era Microsoft attitudes to patching those holes.
Now, as it happens, I think 8.2 actually contains all the current security fixes (not 100% sure odd the top of my head) but I had a bunch of issues with Adobe Reader 8 that were fixed by Reader 9 anyway. It actually is better, although not without its own quirks.
It's a lame and difficult situation. Patching systems is a huge headache for pretty much every IT department everywhere, and the need to balance risk of keeping the vulnerability vs. risk of breaking something is pretty complicated when you're talking about systems that must be running for your company to make money. So I understand both positions, but Adobe Reader is a must-patch app.
I haven't downloaded the revised version of the APG final playtest. I can say te first version had no issues on my system (Win7 x64, and the curren version of Reader 9). I have seen other PDFs (not from Paizo) have capital A's, especially ornately decorative fonts, disappear. Sometimes closing/reopening them helped. Haven't seen that issue in a while, and I'll have to check when I get home in 8 hours or so.
I'm looking forward to using some of these changes with my group, although with the Super Bowl this weekend I'm not sure if we'll actually play. It probably depends on how organized I am tomorrow.
If we are going to raise questions here:
1) What are the rules for resummoning an Eidolon dismissed via Banishment/Dismissal/etc
2) What are the rules for resummoning an Eidolon dismissed by the Summoner himself?
3) What kind of summon is the Eidolon? Is calling the Eidolon a Supernatural ability or is it Spell-like? How does this relate to the effect of SLA Metamagic and feats like Augmented Summoning.
|
|
If we are going to raise questions here:
1) What are the rules for resummoning an Eidolon dismissed via Banishment/Dismissal/etc
2) What are the rules for resummoning an Eidolon dismissed by the Summoner himself?
3) What kind of summon is the Eidolon? Is calling the Eidolon a Supernatural ability or is it Spell-like? How does this relate to the effect of SLA Metamagic and feats like Augmented Summoning.
As far as I can tell the re-summoning is fairly straight forward. If the eidolon is dismissed do to any effect except through "death", the summoner is free to re-summon the eidolon, but only once per day.
I've got no idea what kind of effect it is.
|
I've got windows 7 with the latest adobe 9 update, and I just downloaded the updated playtest today. The original final playtest document showed the A's, but this new one does not.
Not that it means anything because it's only the titles of the classes. Even the charts show the A's and so does the general text. So it's not some major problem I think needs a lot of time spent fixing.
1) What are the rules for resummoning an Eidolon dismissed via Banishment/Dismissal/etc
They can be banished and dismissed and you can re-summon once a day.
2) What are the rules for resummoning an Eidolon dismissed by the Summoner himself?
You can dismiss and then re-summon it once a day
3) What kind of summon is the Eidolon? Is calling the Eidolon a Supernatural ability or is it Spell-like? How does this relate to the effect of SLA Metamagic and feats like Augmented Summoning.
apparently Since it is summoned through a "ritual" it does not benefit from augment summoning
If we are going to raise questions here:
1) What are the rules for resummoning an Eidolon dismissed via Banishment/Dismissal/etc
2) What are the rules for resummoning an Eidolon dismissed by the Summoner himself?
3) What kind of summon is the Eidolon? Is calling the Eidolon a Supernatural ability or is it Spell-like? How does this relate to the effect of SLA Metamagic and feats like Augmented Summoning.
As far as I can tell the re-summoning is fairly straight forward. If the eidolon is dismissed do to any effect except through "death", the summoner is free to re-summon the eidolon, but only once per day.
The problem here is that it doesn't explicitly address the case. The only thing it says is what happens if the Eidolon is destroyed by damage. And even that rule is ambiguous.
Also, that's bloody terrible. The class is literally built around the Eidolon.4) What happens if my Eidolon was summoned yesterday, but was destroyed by damage today?
Also, I am POSITIVE none of you are the designers
If we are going to raise questions here:
1) What are the rules for resummoning an Eidolon dismissed via Banishment/Dismissal/etc
2) What are the rules for resummoning an Eidolon dismissed by the Summoner himself?
3) What kind of summon is the Eidolon? Is calling the Eidolon a Supernatural ability or is it Spell-like? How does this relate to the effect of SLA Metamagic and feats like Augmented Summoning.
As far as I can tell the re-summoning is fairly straight forward. If the eidolon is dismissed do to any effect except through "death", the summoner is free to re-summon the eidolon, but only once per day.
The problem here is that it doesn't say that. The only thing it says is what happens if the Eidolon is destroyed by damage. And even that rule is ambiguous.
4) What happens if my Eidolon was summoned yesterday, but was destroyed by damage today?
players and DM will be trying to sort out the summoners rules for months to come as they are written now
you have to wait for the next day
more important question what happens when the summoner dies does the Eidolon just carry around his body so he stays around? If the link severed and the summoners soul goes to another plane does the summons vanishes since it has to be 10,000 feet away?
you have to wait for the next day
I'm going to state this here. Take it how you like it.
I do NOT care what your opinion is. If I wanted player opinions, I wouldn't have posted it in this thread.
you have to wait for the next dayI'm going to state this here. Take it how you like it.
I do NOT care what your opinion is. If I wanted player opinions, I wouldn't have posted it in this thread.
read the PDF
A summoner can summon his eidolon once per day in
a ritual that takes 1 minute to perform.When summoned
in this way, the eidolon hit points are unchanged from
the last time it was summoned. The only exception to
this is if the eidolon was slain, in which case it returns
with half its normal hit points. The eidolon remains
until dismissed by the summoner (a standard action). If
the eidolon is sent back to its home plane due to damage,
it cannot be summoned again until the following day.
The eidolon cannot be sent back to its home plane by means of dispel magic, but spells such as dismissal and
banishment work normally.
This is the only way you can't resummon your Eidolon that day.
If the eidolon is sent back to its home plane due to damage,
it cannot be summoned again until the following day.
That pretty much covers most of your questions.
You are right I am not a designer but I did read the PDF and I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night.
I find the wording needlessly hard to read. And the rule that the Eidolon can only be summoned once a day patently absurd for a class entirely based around said Eidolon.
And the ambiguity is still there for the dismissal due to damage, regardless of how many times you write and highlight it. And you are still not a designer.
I find the wording needlessly hard to read. And the rule that the Eidolon can only be summoned once a day patently absurd for a class entirely based around said Eidolon.
And the ambiguity is still there for the dismissal due to damage, regardless of how many times you write and highlight it. And you are still not a designer.
it's because it is summoned back healed, it made more sense when it came back fully healed.
it's because it is summoned back healed, it made more sense when it came back fully healed.I find the wording needlessly hard to read. And the rule that the Eidolon can only be summoned once a day patently absurd for a class entirely based around said Eidolon.
And the ambiguity is still there for the dismissal due to damage, regardless of how many times you write and highlight it. And you are still not a designer.
I was thinking more along the lines of x/day increasing with level.
Though you make a better point. Now that it comes back at half-hp after being killed and at the same HP that it was dismissed with, there is no reason to limit the times per day if you leave the rules concerning what happens when dismissed by damage.
I find the wording needlessly hard to read. And the rule that the Eidolon can only be summoned once a day patently absurd for a class entirely based around said Eidolon.
And the ambiguity is still there for the dismissal due to damage, regardless of how many times you write and highlight it. And you are still not a designer.
Honestly if you only want designer feedback pm or email them. Otherwise, since this is a public forum, people are going to try to hash things out among themselves. I think that this promotes more ideas from us and the gives the designer a different perspective that allows them to change their mind later. This is, after all, still in beta. The more perspectives and ideas they get to read the better the final version will be.
Honestly if you only want designer feedback pm or email them. Otherwise, since this is a public forum, people are going to try to hash things out among themselves. I think that this promotes more ideas from us and the gives the designer a different perspective that allows them to change their mind later. This is, after all, still in beta. The more perspectives and ideas they get to read the better the final version will be.
+1
Honestly if you only want designer feedback pm or email them. Otherwise, since this is a public forum, people are going to try to hash things out among themselves. I think that this promotes more ideas from us and the gives the designer a different perspective that allows them to change their mind later. This is, after all, still in beta. The more perspectives and ideas they get to read the better the final version will be.I find the wording needlessly hard to read. And the rule that the Eidolon can only be summoned once a day patently absurd for a class entirely based around said Eidolon.
And the ambiguity is still there for the dismissal due to damage, regardless of how many times you write and highlight it. And you are still not a designer.
Fair enough, but the point was to point out things that are confusing so that the designers could make an official ruling, hopefully in text. Having people spout off what they believe the answer is isn't an official ruling so it doesn't benefit me at all.
We could all spend 5 pages talking about how Evil Eye is supposed to work (which has been done multiple times), but nowhere in those 5 pages is an answer ever given that is worth more than dirt for the game as a whole because the designers never clarified it in the text.
Honestly if you only want designer feedback pm or email them. Otherwise, since this is a public forum, people are going to try to hash things out among themselves. I think that this promotes more ideas from us and the gives the designer a different perspective that allows them to change their mind later. This is, after all, still in beta. The more perspectives and ideas they get to read the better the final version will be.I find the wording needlessly hard to read. And the rule that the Eidolon can only be summoned once a day patently absurd for a class entirely based around said Eidolon.
And the ambiguity is still there for the dismissal due to damage, regardless of how many times you write and highlight it. And you are still not a designer.Fair enough, but the point was to point out things that are confusing so that the designers could make an official ruling, hopefully in text. Having people spout off what they believe the answer is isn't an official ruling so it doesn't benefit me at all.
We could all spend 5 pages talking about how Evil Eye is supposed to work (which has been done multiple times), but nowhere in those 5 pages is an answer ever given that is worth more than dirt for the game as a whole because the designers never clarified it in the text.
The discussion in and of itself could cause the designer to rule differently than without the discussion. By bringing these things to the designers attention and then trying to hash out different scenarios and different ways of thinking about the problem, it is possible to influence the design. Forums are a great place for designers to see problems they didn't think of. Also, the discussion helps people to decide how they will use the ability in their own game. It helps to point out the ramifications of each interpretation so that you can decide how best to implement it until there is an official answer. To be honest, Jason is probably pretty busy at the moment. While he may keep tabs on the forums, whenever he makes a post there are instantly 20 people asking him to clarify x or y. If he spent all his time answering questions he probably wouldn't get anything else done.
I'm not saying that an official response isn't desired, but I am trying to point out the 5 page discussion on rules clarifications are also useful.
Agreed, but this isn't the place to have them. Those could be had in the threads for them. Here I was just hoping to encourage an official response (possibly inspired by those threads).
And the ambiguity is still there for the dismissal due to damage
How is "If the Eidolon is dismissed due to damage, it cannot be summoned again until the following day" the slightest bit ambiguous?
Answer: It isn't. It's quite clear. Eidolon "died" due to damage? Eidolon unavailable until the next day. Note that this actually doesn't need to be stated, because it is the default rule for summoned creatures.
I don't think many people summon specific creatures, but now that you mention it, that does sound familiar.
Agreed, but this isn't the place to have them. Those could be had in the threads for them. Here I was just hoping to encourage an official response (possibly inspired by those threads).
We should probably start a convention where you post a question in here and then link to a thread relating to the question with a note to post all comments in the provided thread. That way Jason has access to the discussion and we can keep the sticky threads a little less bogged down.
Please post all comments/feedback here thread
|
|
I'm mad at disney, I went into a door marked disney employees only at disney and they told me I wasn't allowed back there.
How can they tell me I'm not allowed back there. I'm employeed, I'm at disney. That makes me a disney employee. I'm going to picket at there entrance until they clarify this! And don't you try to tell me that its meant to be people employeed by disney corporation because it says disney employees. You're not michael eisner, until I hear this from michael eisner. I'm not accepting any other explanation because its too confusing dangit!
I'm mad at disney, I went into a door marked disney employees only at disney and they told me I wasn't allowed back there.
How can they tell me I'm not allowed back there. I'm employeed, I'm at disney. That makes me a disney employee. I'm going to picket at there entrance until they clarify this! And don't you try to tell me that its meant to be people employeed by disney corporation because it says disney employees. You're not michael eisner, until I hear this from michael eisner. I'm not accepting any other explanation because its too confusing dangit!
Michael Eisner? Pfft, I'm taking this to Walt Disney himself.
Also, you are suffering from strawman disease. You should see some one about that.|
|
I'm mad at disney, I went into a door marked disney employees only at disney and they told me I wasn't allowed back there.
How can they tell me I'm not allowed back there. I'm employeed, I'm at disney. That makes me a disney employee. I'm going to picket at there entrance until they clarify this! And don't you try to tell me that its meant to be people employeed by disney corporation because it says disney employees. You're not michael eisner, until I hear this from michael eisner. I'm not accepting any other explanation because its too confusing dangit!
Michael Eisner? Pfft, I'm taking this to Walt Disney himself.
Also, you are suffering from strawman disease. You should see some one about that.
actually I suffer from smartass turettes
I'm mad at disney, I went into a door marked disney employees only at disney and they told me I wasn't allowed back there.
How can they tell me I'm not allowed back there. I'm employeed, I'm at disney. That makes me a disney employee. I'm going to picket at there entrance until they clarify this! And don't you try to tell me that its meant to be people employeed by disney corporation because it says disney employees. You're not michael eisner, until I hear this from michael eisner. I'm not accepting any other explanation because its too confusing dangit!
Michael Eisner? Pfft, I'm taking this to Walt Disney himself.
Also, you are suffering from strawman disease. You should see some one about that.
At least he doesn't suffer from terminal arse-hattedness. [/meaningful glance at Cartigan]
Is there a reflex save involved for this damage like the splash or no?
As a DM, I would rule no - it was already determined that he was hit - fast reflexes wouldn't allow him to dodge out from under napalm that's already clinging to him.
Unless somebody has a tool that could modify the font embedded in the PDF directly, yes, there would be a crazy amount of effort involved. Hours per, and that doesn't even include remaking any changes to the bookmarks.
I *think* PitStop Pro allows you to do this, if it is indeed embedded in the PDF. I'm pretty sure you can't modify or add a font that isn't embedded using PitStop.
Chief Technical Officer
|
It looks like the fix we employed to improve compatibility with older versions of OS X seems to have caused problems with some versions of Adobe Reader and Adobe Acrobat. I've reverted that change for now. Folks who were having problems, go ahead and repersonalize and redownload.
We'll keep working to see if we can get a version that works for everyone (except you poor Snow Leopard/Preview folks... the Capital A problem will remain for you for a while longer...)
Is there a reflex save involved for this damage like the splash or no?As a DM, I would rule no - it was already determined that he was hit - fast reflexes wouldn't allow him to dodge out from under napalm that's already clinging to him.
If you look in the section about bombs and the damage they deal you will see they have added a reflex save for splash damage. DC = 10 + 1/2 alch level + Int Mod
|
It looks like the fix we employed to improve compatibility with older versions of OS X seems to have caused problems with some versions of Adobe Reader and Adobe Acrobat. I've reverted that change for now. Folks who were having problems, go ahead and repersonalize and redownload.
We'll keep working to see if we can get a version that works for everyone (except you poor Snow Leopard/Preview folks... the Capital A problem will remain for you for a while longer...)
Damn... I was hoping for the Snow Leopard fix to happen.... Oh well, I hope Apple fixes Preview soon...
It looks like the fix we employed to improve compatibility with older versions of OS X seems to have caused problems with some versions of Adobe Reader and Adobe Acrobat. I've reverted that change for now. Folks who were having problems, go ahead and repersonalize and redownload.
We'll keep working to see if we can get a version that works for everyone (except you poor Snow Leopard/Preview folks... the Capital A problem will remain for you for a while longer...)
It works now, thanks. Sorry about the OS X / Preview people. Good luck on Apple fixing that...
It looks like the fix we employed to improve compatibility with older versions of OS X seems to have caused problems with some versions of Adobe Reader and Adobe Acrobat. I've reverted that change for now. Folks who were having problems, go ahead and repersonalize and redownload.
We'll keep working to see if we can get a version that works for everyone (except you poor Snow Leopard/Preview folks... the Capital A problem will remain for you for a while longer...)
Yes, now works perfectly, thanks !
Vic, it is working correctly for me now, though I did notice one odd thing about the file. The file size of the fixed updated final playtest and the original final playtest are both 5.96 mb in size, while the updated final playtest with the screwy font is 6.35 mb in size. Did the fix you attempted that did not work really change the file size that much or is there something else going on there that I am missing?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Vic, it is working correctly for me now, though I did notice one odd thing about the file. The file size of the fixed updated final playtest and the original final playtest are both 5.96 mb in size, while the updated final playtest with the screwy font is 6.35 mb in size. Did the fix you attempted that did not work really change the file size that much or is there something else going on there that I am missing?
I have long since given up on trying to make sense of PDF file sizes. Sometime you do things that seem like they should clearly increase the file size, and it goes down; sometime you think you're clearly decreasing them, yet they go up. In this case, the "screwy" PDF was produced using a process that we've used many times before, and which almost always results in smaller, less crufty files, but the file size went up this time.
|
|
love the updates. thanx.
a few vital questions i felt need to be brought to light. these are not criticisms, just a ponderous thought. Not sure if these are intentional, an oversight, or merely a type-o,
1] why does the huge evolution only have a reach of 10-feet? (p40)
2] why is the true mutagen a +6 enhancement bonus and not a +8 alchemical bonus to physical scores with -2 to mental? (p7)
3] why is crossbow listed as a weapon proficiency for the inquisitor? its already mentioned they are trained with simple weapons. Even if they weren't, which types of crossbows are they proficient in, small, large, repeating, hand? (p14)
4] what are the starting ages/wealth? (not necessary until final book obviously, just curious on this one)
5] why are the witches bonus spells listed in a "side panel" type display and not just in normal text? (p45)
thank you for the great work (re-work) and i am eagerly anticipating the APG.
a few vital questions i felt need to be brought to light. these are not criticisms, just a ponderous thought. Not sure if these are intentional, an oversight, or merely a type-o,
1] why does the huge evolution only have a reach of 10-feet? (p40)
2] why is the true mutagen a +6 enhancement bonus and not a +8 alchemical bonus to physical scores with -2 to mental? (p7)
3] why is crossbow listed as a weapon proficiency for the inquisitor? its already mentioned they are trained with simple weapons. Even if they weren't, which types of crossbows are they proficient in, small, large, repeating, hand? (p14)
4] what are the starting ages/wealth? (not necessary until final book obviously, just curious on this one)
5] why are the witches bonus spells listed in a "side panel" type display and not just in normal text? (p45)
1. No idea
2. It's supposed to be alchemical, and will be +8/+8/+8/-2/-2/-2, it's in a thread around here somewhere.
3. Inquisitors are supposed to get all repeating, and hand crossbows as well as normal ones. There's a link for this one in the List of Inquisitor Changes thread.
4. Who knows, I've been picking class that is similar thematically or would have similar training/funding. ie. paladin/cavalier, ranger/inquisitor/alchemist, bard/summoner, wizard/witch, cleric/oracle
5. Probably because the bonus spells are from familiars and that's a convenient place to stick them?
I need someone to clarify this ability from Oracle of the Heavens:
Awesome Display (Su): Your phantasmagoric displays
accurately model the mysteries of the night sky,
dumbfounding all who behold them. Creatures affected
by your illusion (pattern) spells are treated as if their
total number of Hit Dice were equal to their number
of Hit Dice minus your Charisma modifier (if positive,
minimum 1).
Seems like an awful lot of fancy wording for an ability that does what, exactly? You get a "welcome to the planetarium" effect that reduces their effective HD for spell effects like sleep? Does this have any affect on their combat abilities? Saves? Feats? Caster level?
This is, to me, a very vague ability...
Which I guess means it had its effect on me
Most pattern spells have a HD cap, or only affect a certain number of HD of creatures. That ability makes it MUCH easier to affect a creature, or increases the number of creatures you're able to affect by a decent amount. Take, for example, rainbow pattern:
The normal effect of the spell is to fascinate up to 24 HD of creatures. If you're fighting a squad of four 8th level guards, you can only get three of them with the spell. However, if you have Awesome Display, you can get all four, because their total hit dice falls from 28 to (28-Cha), and your Cha is almost certain to be at least 18.
Still, rather than saying:
"Creatures affected by your illusion (pattern) spells are treated as if their total number of Hit Dice were equal to their number of Hit Dice minus your Charisma modifier (if positive, minimum 1)."
it would probably be clearer and more straight to the point to just say:
"...Your illusion(pattern) spells affect an additional number of Hit Dice equal to your CHA modifier (if positive, minimum 1)."
Shorter, and to the point.
Still, rather than saying:
"Creatures affected by your illusion (pattern) spells are treated as if their total number of Hit Dice were equal to their number of Hit Dice minus your Charisma modifier (if positive, minimum 1)."it would probably be clearer and more straight to the point to just say:
"...Your illusion(pattern) spells affect an additional number of Hit Dice equal to your CHA modifier (if positive, minimum 1)."Shorter, and to the point.
Yes, exactly. That would clarify it very well. Heck, the original wording confuses ME and I'm a gamer with more than 20 years' experience; imagine how a newbie would feel reading that.
Still, rather than saying:
"Creatures affected by your illusion (pattern) spells are treated as if their total number of Hit Dice were equal to their number of Hit Dice minus your Charisma modifier (if positive, minimum 1)."it would probably be clearer and more straight to the point to just say:
"...Your illusion(pattern) spells affect an additional number of Hit Dice equal to your CHA modifier (if positive, minimum 1)."Shorter, and to the point.
Of course, that`s much weaker, however.
Ah, yes, well I wasn't sure about the intent of the original wording,
it could be referring to EACH creature having their "total" Hit Die be treated as less (but I thought that was wierd way to say that), or the "Creatures" as a whole" total Hit Die is treated as less, which to me seemed the more likely interpretation since I rarely see/use the phrase "total Hit Die" to refer to a creature whose Hit Die are known, it seemed more likely to apply to the group. All the better in need of clarification, obviously.
If the more powerful (per creature) meaning IS intended, it would be easy enough to add a "per creature" line to my example sentence.
Ah, yes, well I wasn't sure about the intent of the original wording,
it could be referring to EACH creature having their "total" Hit Die be treated as less (but I thought that was wierd way to say that), or the "Creatures" as a whole" total Hit Die is treated as less, which to me seemed the more likely interpretation since I rarely see/use the phrase "total Hit Die" to refer to a creature whose Hit Die are known, it seemed more likely to apply to the group. All the better in need of clarification, obviously.If the more powerful (per creature) meaning IS intended, it would be easy enough to add a "per creature" line to my example sentence.
I think Total Hit Die is used for when creatures have monster HD and class levels. I interpret it as each creature being affected, so that 24 HD spell would affect 6 lvl 8 people instead of the normal 3. I am not positive though, and this wording does need to be cleared up.
Ah, yes, well I wasn't sure about the intent of the original wording,
it could be referring to EACH creature having their "total" Hit Die be treated as less (but I thought that was wierd way to say that), or the "Creatures" as a whole" total Hit Die is treated as less, which to me seemed the more likely interpretation since I rarely see/use the phrase "total Hit Die" to refer to a creature whose Hit Die are known, it seemed more likely to apply to the group.
Now that you point out the word "total", I agree it's confusing. Maybe it does mean that you add up all of the creatures' hit dice before applying the adjustment.
Ah, yes, well I wasn't sure about the intent of the original wording,
it could be referring to EACH creature having their "total" Hit Die be treated as less (but I thought that was wierd way to say that), or the "Creatures" as a whole" total Hit Die is treated as less, which to me seemed the more likely interpretation since I rarely see/use the phrase "total Hit Die" to refer to a creature whose Hit Die are known, it seemed more likely to apply to the group. All the better in need of clarification, obviously.If the more powerful (per creature) meaning IS intended, it would be easy enough to add a "per creature" line to my example sentence.
However, if the weaker meaning is intended, it will also need to be clarified how to spread about the penalties to effective Hit Dice. For instance, say your 20 Charisma level 3 Oracle casts Colour Spray on an area containing one 6HD critter, one 7HD critter, one 3HD critter, and one 5HD critter. Under the stronger interpretation, all of them save or get knocked out (!). Under the weaker, what happens? There's a bunch of possibilities here. Obviously moving two of the three creatures that would normally be stunned for a single round down into the longer stun category is prudent. But an Oracle worried about successful saves from the 6 and 7 HD guys might instead opt to move the weaker monsters into the KO range.
And of course, the ability to make such choices assume that the player has metagame knowledge of all the monsters' HD. Realistically, there would be no good way to choose how to apply this in-character without encouraging metagaming. "Umm, that thing looks big and scary, I'll apply 3 of my reduction to it and 1 to each of its buddies." "Sorry, it had 8HD and its minions were each 4, so you change nothing. Should've done 4 to the big bad or else two to each minion."