In the wizard/sorcerer spell list (p. 237) spell turning has the "M" code that denotes costly material components, but in the description of the spell (p. 347) there is no mention of the cost of the material component.
Should the "M" be expunged?
I'd say the 'M' component is the 'small silver mirror' mentioned in the spell index. I wouldn't take that to be a divine focus. How is a small silver mirror 'a holy symbol appropriate to' EVERY cleric caster's faith?
So... no PC ever used spell turning in your games, right?
No. They haven't. We usually play at much lower levels. Your sarcasm can go elsewhere. None but James, Jason or the rest of the official Paizo crew are qualified to rule on errors/errata. We can give best guesses but we cannot give a definitive answer. This is not a RAW question, but a RAI question. As such, people might steer clear of it.
Anyway...
Robert Young is right though, the "small silver mirror" is the material component. The problem is that the equipment section lists only a price for a "small steel mirror", which is 10 gp, and the spell itself lists no value for the silver mirror. Adding alchemical silver to a light weapon (which would be a small steel object) would bring the price to 30 gp, which sounds more the reasonable. It satisfies the "expensive material component" clause by costing more than 1 gp and it should definitely be chump change for your 13th level wizard.
|
I'd say the 'M' component is the 'small silver mirror' mentioned in the spell index. I wouldn't take that to be a divine focus. How is a small silver mirror 'a holy symbol appropriate to' EVERY cleric caster's faith?
I suspected that, but usually spells with "M" explicitely indicate a component worth x gp.
|
|
Actually, I'd say only half or less of the spells with M have a gp value listed for the item. Take a look at fireball or confusion for example. In other words M does not denote a costly material component.
Read my original post, please.
It has an "M" in the spell list on page 237. In that list M indicates a costly material component (and an F indicates a focus), i.e. one that is not normally included in a spell component pouch (as explained on page 224, top left).AFAIK, all other spells with a costly material component have the cost in gp indicated in the text, on the component line (cf. arcane lock, legend lore, stoneskin or resurrection), with the exception of spell turning.
So I am inquiring if
(a) the cost was omitted, and in this case which is the cost
or
(b) the "M" on page 237 is a typo and should not be there.
I wondered the same thing. Not that I've ever cast the spell because the single target thingie sucks (we always get hit with area/multitarget stuff hehe). I vaguely recall a small silver mirror costs 50gp. But that would make the component (F) and not (M)
I wondered the same thing. Not that I've ever cast the spell because the single target thingie sucks (we always get hit with area/multitarget stuff hehe). I vaguely recall a small silver mirror costs 50gp. But that would make the component (F) and not (M)
Not if it's consumed in the casting.
|
|
What you are asking for is official errata.
You are not going to get an answer, at least not any time soon. There are lots of people who have asked "official errata" style questions since August, and most of them have not been answered, so there is at least a 6 month waiting time.
That said, given the nature of the spell, I suspect that the "M" is a typo. It's good, and something that a mage would want to cast if he was about to fight another spellcaster, but it's not worth the hassle of keeping 4-5 50g mats in your pocket all the time.
In my own personal opinion, costly material components only make sense for spells with long casting times or long durations; if it's something a mage would fire off right in the middle of a fight and expect it to be gone before the next, it shouldn't cost anything, otherwise the spell is not worth the hassle.
It's not like the mage can just cross off 50g on his sheet when he casts the spell; sure that's how we handle it most of the time because it's easier, but that assumes he can go and buy it at his leisure, which, again, only makes sense for spells that take a while or last a while.
A costly focus is different; the mage buys it when he learns the spell and sticks it in his pouch. But a costly material component is clumsy and unnecessary for a spell that is cast as a standard action and lasts mere rounds.
|
|
What you are asking for is official errata.
Correct.
You are not going to get an answer, at least not any time soon. There are lots of people who have asked "official errata" style questions since August, and most of them have not been answered, so there is at least a 6 month waiting time.
A waiting time of 6 months for the game designers just to say yes or no or 50 gp on such a trivial question?!
This sounds moderately outrageous.
That said, given the nature of the spell, I suspect that the "M" is a typo.
Makes sense, in fact I also suspected a typo. But again, clearly an official errata is needed.
In my own personal opinion, costly material components only make sense for spells with long casting times or long durations; if it's something a mage would fire off right in the middle of a fight and expect it to be gone before the next, it shouldn't cost anything, otherwise the spell is not worth the hassle.
In my own personal opinion, also stoneskin and true seeing (the latter last only 1 minute/level) should not have a costly material component -- or at least not such an expensive one! An expensive focus would be more than enough.
But I am interested in the official ruling here (probably much more than you are interested in my set of ad hoc home-rules).
Okay, so let me get this straight. Your game has ground to an insurmountable halt because of a small maybe-maybe-not typo in a spell list and you are demanding that the officials (who are busy publishing three new core books, a hand full of adventure paths as well as internally playtesting all of the new monsters, classes, feats and spells that will be contained in those various publications) stop by this thread to give you an official fix for this.
Is that right? Does your game lack a GM capable of independent rulings?
I've seen dozens of threads marking that there is an error here or there and that there are possible errors in dozens of other places. This one is no different than whether the Skill Focus (Perception) listed on the Raven entry in the Bestiary is an error. It hasn't received anything official and won't. You've made your statement and, should the fine folks at Paizo notice this thread, they will look into it and address it in the next printing, which will contain the errata.
I'm glad you've pointed it out, as I am with all the other potential errata or issues needing an FAQ entry. This lets me know that I might need to come up with a solution for my table, should it ever be an issue. I needn't wait for James or Jason to peek in and give an "official" answer. At my table, I determine what is official. And, in this case, I would rule that the M is not a typo and that you need the 30 gp mirror.
|
|
You are not going to get an answer, at least not any time soon. There are lots of people who have asked "official errata" style questions since August, and most of them have not been answered, so there is at least a 6 month waiting time.
A waiting time of 6 months for the game designers just to say yes or no or 50 gp on such a trivial question?!
This sounds moderately outrageous.
No, that's NORMAL.
Name a system, ANY system, whether it be a tabletop game or computer software or a massive machine like a plane or ship, anywhere in the world, where a single user reporting a extremely minor and purely cosmetic mistake would have any right at all to expect to see it fixed within THREE YEARS. Name ONE. Please.
What you are asking for is extremely minor and can be easily ignored, fixed, or worked around. The only thing that's "outrageous" here is the way you keep on insisting that your tiny insignificant little problem deserves attention from one of the half-dozen or so very very VERY busy people who actually have the authority to make an "official" reply.
You probably will not get an official response, so either pick one of the options your fellow players have provided or invent your own solution.
People like you who try to demand an official answer to their minor questions are why most game developers don't post on their own forums at all, or appoint "official forum moderators" who can provide a temporary errata until they get around to it. We are extremely fortunate to have the writers and editors of Pathfinder post on these boards with any degree of regularity -you should be nice to them, not chase them off with pitchforks.
Also note, that since all of Pathfinder is based entirely on the existing d20 SRD, a simple examination of that will reveal that the "small silver mirror" is an "arcane material component" in the d20 SRD version of spell turning. It would appear that line was left out of the Pathfinder version, likely due to their change in format (including the "small silver mirror" on the Components line).
So, in fact, since it's intended to be a standard equipment type of item, I don't actually see any errors here - I think the spell as written is correct.
For example, alarm doesn't give the cost of the 'tiny bell' or the 'piece of very fine silver wire', nor does it mention either anywhere except the Components line.
Also note, that since all of Pathfinder is based entirely on the existing d20 SRD, a simple examination of that will reveal that the "small silver mirror" is an "arcane material component" in the d20 SRD version of spell turning. It would appear that line was left out of the Pathfinder version, likely due to their change in format (including the "small silver mirror" on the Components line).
So, in fact, since it's intended to be a standard equipment type of item, I don't actually see any errors here - I think the spell as written is correct.
For example, alarm doesn't give the cost of the 'tiny bell' or the 'piece of very fine silver wire', nor does it mention either anywhere except the Components line.
Alarm shows a focus component on D20PFSRD, not a material component.
The confusion here is that there is an indication that the material component for Spell Turning is an expensive one (one that cannot be Eschewed) due to its presentation in the spell lists by level. Normally this is accompanied by a gp listing for the expensive component in the spell index, but which is missing for Spell Turning.
|
|
The Original Poster is referring specifically to the "M" that appears after the spell "Spell Turning" in the 7th level of Sorcerer/Wizard spells. The "M" also appears on the Pathfinder SRD, linked HERE. Note that the "M", when used like this on a spell list, indicates that the spell has a costly material component, but the spell description does not indicate the cost or nature of that component - see "Instant Summons", Magnificent Mansion" ,or "Limited Wish" within the same list as examples.
This is a very minor issue, and probably best regarded as a typo until official errata is issued.
Well, if that is the only purpose, then I think it's still clear - is there a requirement somewhere that values of components be listed in the spell description?
I mean, sure it's an annoyance that "a small crystal sphere" (freezing sphere) or "a lodestone" (disintegrate) don't have costs and aren't in the equipment list, but I'm not sure I'd consider that an error - we're not playing Chartmaster - use your judgement.
If a small steel mirror is 10gp, clearly a small silver mirror is not "less than 1 gp" and thus can't be covered by Eschew Materials.
|
|
The Original Poster is referring specifically to the "M" that appears after the spell "Spell Turning" in the 7th level of Sorcerer/Wizard spells. The "M" also appears on the Pathfinder SRD, linked HERE. Note that the "M", when used like this on a spell list, indicates that the spell has a costly material component, but the spell description does not indicate the cost or nature of that component - see "Instant Summons", Magnificent Mansion" ,or "Limited Wish" within the same list as examples.
This is a very minor issue, and probably best regarded as a typo until official errata is issued.
I've cited the quote from the Spell List page as to what the M stands for. There is no mention of a costly material component in the explanation, just a statement that M denotes a material component not normally found in a spell pouch.
The official Pathfinder Reference Document:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spellLists.html
An M or F appearing at the end of a spell's name in the spell lists denotes a spell with a material or focus component, respectively, that is not normally included in a spell component pouch.This is exactly what can be found on page 224, paragraph 1, sentence 2. There is no mention of the material component having to be costly. If I am missing something obvious, please tell me.
This isn't to say that the M may be a typo, but it does not necessarily indicate what people are claiming it indicates in this thread.
You are incorrect.
The "M" you are referring to is the "M" used on the Components line of a individual spell description, such as Sequester. When used in this manner, all it indicates is that the spell requires some sort of material component, which - unless indicated otherwise - is considered to have no cost and be a normal part of a Spell Component Pouch.
The "M" that is causing an issue is a completely different "M" used in a different place to indicate a different thing (yes, they should have used a different letter).
Specifically, we are discussing the "M" which is appended to the end of a spell on the sorcerer/wizard spell list and which only and always indicates a spell with a costly material component - that is, the spell has an additional cost beyond what is normally found in a Spell Component Pouch.
The issue at hand is that an "M" is attached to a spell that does not, in fact, have a costly spell component listed.
Specifically, we are discussing the "M" which is appended to the end of a spell on the sorcerer/wizard spell list and which only and always indicates a spell with a costly material component - that is, the spell has an additional cost beyond what is normally found in a Spell Component Pouch.
The issue at hand is that an "M" is attached to a spell that does not, in fact, have a costly spell component listed.
Costly, I'm assuming, just means "cannot be ignored via the Eschew Materials" feat. Which makes sense for a small silver mirror, which will cost more than a small steel mirror.
Unless there's somewhere that says "M means that the cost of the component is listed in the spell description." In which case, yes, there's an error.
Creative Director
|
In the wizard/sorcerer spell list (p. 237) spell turning has the "M" code that denotes costly material components, but in the description of the spell (p. 347) there is no mention of the cost of the material component.
Should the "M" be expunged?
First off... try to keep in mind that all of you outnumber us thousands to one. We DO try to answer these questions, but we have to balance that time spent answering questions with the rest of our day jobs of writing, editing, etc.
The small silver mirror material component in this spell is indeed missing a cost (as it was in 3.5... this is an error that got grandfathered into the Pathifnder game, alas).
The cost of the mirror should be 100 gp.
The small silver mirror material component in this spell is indeed missing a cost (as it was in 3.5... this is an error that got grandfathered into the Pathifnder game, alas).
The cost of the mirror should be 100 gp.
Wow, you really do go above and beyond.
Now to update d20pfsrd.com :)
|
|
First off... try to keep in mind that all of you outnumber us thousands to one. We DO try to answer these questions, but we have to balance that time spent answering questions with the rest of our day jobs of writing, editing, etc.
The small silver mirror material component in this spell is indeed missing a cost (as it was in 3.5... this is an error that got grandfathered into the Pathifnder game, alas).
The cost of the mirror should be 100 gp.
Thank you very much for your reply, James! :)
T.
|
|
What you are asking for is official errata.
You are not going to get an answer, at least not any time soon. There are lots of people who have asked "official errata" style questions since August, and most of them have not been answered, so there is at least a 6 month waiting time.
I appear to have vastly overestimated the time this would take :).
The cost of the mirror should be 100 gp.
Thanks to gbonehead d20pfsrd.com is already updated and I added an "errata" box with JJ's statement above so people don't think we made the info up :)
I was wondering how you wanted to handle that. Now I know :)
|
|
No, that's NORMAL.
Name a system, ANY system, whether it be a tabletop game or computer software or a massive machine like a plane or ship, anywhere in the world, where a single user reporting a extremely minor and purely cosmetic mistake would have any right at all to expect to see it fixed within THREE YEARS. Name ONE. Please.
Paizo does it! :)
What you are asking for is extremely minor and can be easily ignored, fixed, or worked around. The only thing that's "outrageous" here is the way you keep on insisting that your tiny insignificant little problem deserves attention from one of the half-dozen or so very very VERY busy people who actually have the authority to make an "official" reply.
I do not fully understand why you (and Mauril as well) are getting so angry at me. You judge my question as completely minor and irrelevant, and I have no problem with that judgement of yours.
But then, why you don't simply ignore my thread?Why do you, a fellow regular board user, feel the urge of coming here and indoctrinate me about what I should or should not post on the boards? If there is a problem, the moderator will notify it to me, and I assure you that I will respect his or her decision.
We are extremely fortunate to have the writers and editors of Pathfinder post on these boards with any degree of regularity -you should be nice to them, not chase them off with pitchforks.
And I am nice to them indeed. Simply, rather than singing the designers' paean on the boards, I prefer to express my "nicety" and appreciation to them by purchasing their high-quality products and - indirectly - having my players buy their products as well. I think that this is the sincerest form of flattery.
|
First off... try to keep in mind that all of you outnumber us thousands to one. We DO try to answer these questions, but we have to balance that time spent answering questions with the rest of our day jobs of writing, editing, etc.The small silver mirror material component in this spell is indeed missing a cost (as it was in 3.5... this is an error that got grandfathered into the Pathifnder game, alas).
The cost of the mirror should be 100 gp.
First of all, thanks again to Paizo (James!) for their continued presence in threads like this one!
Secondly, I know I am late to this thread but...
That being said, I have a question regarding this. Seeing as how Material components are consumed when the spell is cast, that would mean that this spell costs 100gp per casting. Multiple castings would require you to carry multiple mirrors of said value (additional cost, encumbrance factors etc).
This doesn't seem right somehow. I would submit that the mirror should be a Focus component instead if it going to be an item of some value.
A quick scan of the Pathfinder Core rulebook reveals that prior to this ruling, only one other spell has a spell component line of M/DF where the material has any monetary value attached. That spell would be Undeath to Death (which I would further submit is a unique corner case spell).
I understand that some spells require costly components, I'm just not sure that this spell is one of them.
Thoughts?
Cheers
Only two spells in the system have a costly material component?
That can't possibly be right.
|
|
Only two spells in the system have a costly material component?
That can't possibly be right.
That isn't what I said! :)
There are spells with costly material components.
However, there is only one spell (currently) listed with "M/DF" that has a costly material component listed (the aforementioned Undeath to Death).
Most of the spells that have M/DF listed in the component line have no monetary value assigned to said component. (ie. Antimagic Field, Antipathy, Disintegrate etc etc etc).
That is what I was comparing to.
Cheers
EDIT:
PS Just so I'm as clear as mud, I am comparing spells with component lines which read "V, S, M/DF". This is different from lines that read "V, S, M" or "V, S, F/DF". Is that clearer? :)
Gotcha.
Just from the PFSRD (and not including spell turning) I get:
Awaken, Commune, Forbiddance, Hallow, Lesser Planar Ally, Planar Ally, Greater Planar Ally, Raise Dead, Undeath to Death
So it's not exactly unheard of. And that's just restricting it to M/DF. If it's M/F or M/DF instead of only M/DF, there's more.
Lots more, of course, if you open it up to 3.5e material. Favorable sacrifice (Spell Compendium) is a favorite of my players, all of whom have taken the Ignore Material Components feat.
While I don't claim to speak for the parties in question, I can share my own opinions...
I do not fully understand why you (and Mauril as well) are getting so angry at me.
Because your posting seemed petulant, bordering on a tantrum?
You judge my question as completely minor and irrelevant, and I have no problem with that judgement of yours. But then, why you don't simply ignore my thread?
Why do you, a fellow regular board user, feel the urge of coming here and indoctrinate me about what I should or should not post on the boards?
Because the boards belong to everyone, and we'd rather not let that kind of behavior go unmentioned. It sets a bad example.
If there is a problem, the moderator will notify it to me, and I assure you that I will respect his or her decision.
If there was a serious problem, I'm sure it would have been flagged and mentioned to the moderators. However what you did was not violating any rules, it was just impolite. One would hope that the moderators can trust us to act like adults and resolve our own minor conflicts, like this one. When things get personal or violoate the TOS, then they need to get involved.
Well now there are two, so Undeath to Death won't be so lonely :)
Edit: Umm, Gbone - Awaken, et al, do not have M/DF - they have M, DF. That means material component PLUS divine focus, not instead of.
|
|
To explain it a bit further, and by comparison to Undeath to Death. UtD is a variation of Circle of Death, which has a costly material component (and rightly so IMO). CoD is an arcane only spell that effects living creatures. UtD is both a divine and an arcane spell that effects the undead. It makes sense to me that an arcane caster using UtD should have to pay the material cost. It doesn't make sense that the divine caster should pay the cost when performing, what is essentially a class feature (turn undead/channel energy).
That is why I think that UtD is an unique spell, fully explaining why the component line reads "V, S, M/DF" with a costly arcane material .
Which brings me back around to Spell Turning and the mirror.
I'm not saying that I am right, I'm just curious as to why the reason for the added casting cost when it seems out of line with other spells.
Cheers
|
|
Since I am nit picking a bit already :) I thought I would also add that the language of the spell description is a little "messy" for lack of a better term.
Specifically the line, "The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target."
Read literally, this could be mis-construed to imply that only spells with a spell description line reading "Target: you" are effected.
This of course would render the spell useless as most (all?) spells with the line of "Target: you" are also "Range: personal", meaning that one could not target anyone else with the spell and therefore not a valid spell to turn in the first place.
I am aware of the rules as intended regarding spell turning. :)
Maybe the line could read: "The abjuration turns only spells that target individual creatures."
Too much? :)
Cheers