The Cheater of Mystra in the APG

[Jeremiziah]

This is heady stuff right here. AMiB's fired up about something, I'm still not sure what it is. BRB, gotta go read the thread again.

[A Man In Black]

wraithstrike wrote:

I think MiB is trying to make a point because he knows at some point someone will try to ask a question in the rules sub-forum to "game the system"*. I while back the idea of casting spells you don't have access to was attempted, among other things. If he can bring heat on the issue now the rule can be clarified or it can be errata'd. I have a new player in my group now, and there are things that are hard to understand if you have not been playing for a while.

*I know sometimes the misunderstanding is valid, but at other times.....

Well, I have a few points.

There's no way that I could know only "Area:" (and not "Effect:" spells with an area, or all spells that affect an area) spells are supposed to be usable with this feat without some sort of direct contact with the devs. That's bad writing, please consider fixing this and stop doing this in future products.

That's horribly awkward, and makes the feat not work with lots of spells it logically should work with. Please don't make future feats/spells/items/class options which make a distinction between "Area:" spells and "Effect: (some sort of area)" spells because that's a huge memorization/cross-referencing headache, and consider some way of fixing this for future use.

It's still game-disruptive in combination with some of the spells it can work with, and that's bad.

[Zurai]

wraithstrike wrote:

So if your antimagic field is 10 feet in diameter, and someone is 15 feet away then you cast spells on them, and they can cast spells on you as long as they don't have to travel through the antimagic area like a ray would?

Examples of spells that could affect you or the enemy would be hold person, and power word kill?

Speaking in a strictly Rules-As-Written-(Or-Unwritten)-In-The-Core-Rulebook sense, correct. The only effect of an antimagic field is to suppress magic within its area of effect. It does absolutely nothing to prevent spellcasting within its area of effect, nor does it block line of effect, as long as the spell doesn't have to physically travel through the area of the field. A magic missile would wink out if it touched the field, but you could cast hold person on a target on the opposite side of a field from you just fine.

Or you could just stand in the middle of the field and cast hold person on someone outside the field, since it doesn't interfere with spellcasting.

Yes, that's entirely silly and obviously not Rules As Intended. It is, however, the way the rules are written (or more precisely, how the rules for antimagic in general don't exist, leaving us only the text of antimagic field to base those rules on).

[Mistwalker]

Zurai wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Yes, that's entirely silly and obviously not Rules As Intended. It is, however, the way the rules are written (or more precisely, how the rules for antimagic in general don't exist, leaving us only the text of antimagic field to base those rules on).

Don't you also need line of effect?

[A Man In Black]

Mistwalker wrote:

Don't you also need line of effect?

AMF doesn't block line of effect. It's not a solid barrier.

[Matthew Morris]

Zurai wrote:

Antimagic field does not block line of effect or line of sight. Further, spells like stone to flesh do not require line of effect.

That said, Selective Spell doesn't actually change anything about the interaction between antimagic field and casting spells.

Ah, I see where you and I read it differently Zurai,

I read "suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it" as it blocks line of effect since the spell has to go through the area (a straight unblocked path). To my reading it means that the spell was cast into the area.

I'll agree to disagree on this with you. Just know at my table you can't cast fireball through an AMF to get the target on the other side ;-)

[magnuskn]

A Man In Black wrote:

If it's a moderator comment that heated threads are unwelcome, then that's fair enough, I just won't post those threads at all. Paizo's house, Paizo's rules.

OR you could cool down to a degree when you can post without starting with a phrase which sounds uncivil. Courtesy gets results, if your desired result is developer attention. At least here it does.

[Kabump]

You know, I was gonna add something in here, but I learned my lesson last nite. As such Ill sit back and get some popcorn, as AMiB always makes things interesting.

[Winterthorn]

Considering the OP, as a GM I would consider the fluff related to a rule as a clue to the designer's intent whenever there is ambiguity or confusion...

In this case, "Your allies need not fear friendly fire.", tells me right away this feat was probably not *meant* for spells that do *not* cause direct damage, unlike fireball. Secondly, A-MF is technically an emanation (a spherical one) with duration that actually moves if the caster/source moves. I believe this feat, Selective Spell, is meant for area effects that do not move and possibly even only those that have an instant Area of Effect as Pathos had mentioned. This is my current interpretation until I have more time to figure things out/we get an erratum on it.

I agree with others here that this feat begs clarification.

Just my 0.02, of course.

:-)

[moon glum]

A Man In Black wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

Any cover, concealment, or barrier effect that is between you and a target still has its normal effect on anything that travels between you and the target.

How is blocking your line of sight not affecting you? Where's the list of effects that still affect you despite the fact that the feat says "These targets are excluded from the effects of your spell"?

One could argue that an obstruction to your line of sight does not effect you, but rather it effects the light from reaching your eyes.

What I think is weird would be a selective wall of force. once you cast it so that it hits your allys, they can pass back and forth through it.

Really instead they should have defined it as effecting spells with area of effect burst or blast, and that it allows you to not effect a number of squares in the burst or blast. It would have been simpler, still useful, and less problematic.

[Malikor]

You know, in reference to some of the spells that people are talking about, such as the varous cloud spells, the CLOUD is the effect, not what the cloud does to you. THe spell creates a cloud that blocks vision, it is the cloud not the effect of the spell that casues the lack of sight. So selecting somone to not be afected by any of the various cloud spells is useless.

[Research]

Zurai wrote:

Speaking in a strictly Rules-As-Written-(Or-Unwritten)-In-The-Core-Rulebook sense, correct. The only effect of an antimagic field is to suppress magic within its area of effect. It does absolutely nothing to prevent spellcasting within its area of effect, nor does it block line of effect, as long as the spell doesn't have to physically travel through the area of the field. A magic missile would wink out if it touched the field, but you could cast hold person on a target on the opposite side of a field from you just fine.

Or you could just stand in the middle of the field and cast hold person on someone outside the field, since it doesn't interfere with spellcasting.

Yes, that's entirely silly and obviously not Rules As Intended. It is, however, the way the rules are written (or more precisely, how the rules for antimagic in general don't exist, leaving us only the text of antimagic field to base those rules on).

I'm not sure the magic missile would wink out. I imagine it'd pass through and do nothing to anything within the antimagic field, but once the effect leaves the antimagic field it is no longer surpressed.

It specifically states the effects are not dispelled... so that nice green disintegration ray is surpressed within the antimagic field and doesn't interact with anything, but once it leaves the antimagic field it's back at full strength. (Which I like, as it lets you use the antimagic field to bypass cover.)

That also means that anyone who selectively AMF's themselves and their friends has put themselves in perfect fireball formation, as the fireball detonated inside the antimagic field only affects the people within radius that are unaffected by the antimagic field.

Send some mooks in to hold them down and let the artillery rain.

[A Man In Black]

Malikor wrote:

You know, in reference to some of the spells that people are talking about, such as the varous cloud spells, the CLOUD is the effect, not what the cloud does to you. THe spell creates a cloud that blocks vision, it is the cloud not the effect of the spell that casues the lack of sight. So selecting somone to not be afected by any of the various cloud spells is useless.

The FIREBALL is the effect, not what the fireball does to you. The spell creates a ball of fire that burns your flesh, so selecting someone to not be affected by the ball of fire is useless.

Hmmmmmmmm.

Kabump wrote:

You know, I was gonna add something in here, but I learned my lesson last nite. As such Ill sit back and get some popcorn, as AMiB always makes things interesting.

I do my best.

[King of Vrock]

A Man In Black wrote:

Well, I have a few points.

There's no way that I could know only "Area:" (and not "Effect:" spells with an area, or all spells that affect an area) spells are supposed to be usable with this feat without some sort of direct contact with the devs. That's bad writing, please consider fixing this and stop doing this in future products.

That's horribly awkward, and makes the feat not work with lots of spells it logically should work with. Please don't make future feats/spells/items/class options which make a distinction between "Area:" spells and "Effect: (some sort of area)" spells because that's a huge memorization/cross-referencing headache, and consider some way of fixing this for future use.

It's still game-disruptive in combination with some of the spells it can work with, and that's bad.

Seriously why do people who play magic users NEVER seem to read the Magic chapter? I have to have this argument with my players all the time! Aiming spells has always been broken into Area, Target (or Targets), or Effect in the 3.x/PF rules sets.

When all else fails, read the directions folks.

--Transmute Mud to Vrock!

[Research]

A Man In Black wrote:

Malikor wrote:

You know, in reference to some of the spells that people are talking about, such as the varous cloud spells, the CLOUD is the effect, not what the cloud does to you. THe spell creates a cloud that blocks vision, it is the cloud not the effect of the spell that casues the lack of sight. So selecting somone to not be afected by any of the various cloud spells is useless.

The FIREBALL is the effect, not what the fireball does to you. The spell creates a ball of fire that burns your flesh, so selecting someone to not be affected by the ball of fire is useless.

I'm going to have to agree with this reasoning. Splitting that hair is not something you really should do with the magic system, as that will unleash a pandora's box.

However, cloud spells are emanations around a target and not an "Area of effect" spell. This prevents selective spell from working on them regardless.

[King of Vrock]

moon glum wrote:

What I think is weird would be a selective wall of force. once you cast it so that it hits your allys, they can pass back and forth through it.

Really instead they should have defined it as effecting spells with area of effect burst or blast, and that it allows you to not effect a number of squares in the burst or blast. It would have been simpler, still useful, and less problematic.

Can't be a selective spell, not an Area spell, it's an Effect.

-Vrocking Grasp

[A Man In Black]

King of Vrock wrote:

Seriously why do people who play magic users NEVER seem to read the Magic chapter? I have to have this argument with my players all the time! Aiming spells has always been broken into Area, Target (or Targets), or Effect in the 3.x/PF rules sets.

When all else fails, read the directions folks.

Yes, let's!

Quote:

Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.

You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.

Quote:

Area: Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below.

Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.

You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell's area, anything within that square is within the spell's area. If the spell's area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.

List of shapes omitted, available here

I'm not sure where it says that a spell which affects an area is an area effect spell, or where it says that a spell with an effect over a certain area is not.

The feat could be reworded to say "spells with an Area: listing for targeting" or whatnot, but it doesn't make the feat less awkward or confusing, and makes it only marginally less overpowered. It does mitigate the silliness of "What does it mean to be immune to a Wall of Iron?", though.

[Jeremiziah]

Clearly, this wasn't meant to apply to Wall Of Iron, though, right?

It's obviously meant to be a way of not hitting your fighter with a cone of cold or fireball. Or, I suppose, Black Tentacles - Ogre mantioned BT might be problematic, maybe he could elaborate?

I get that we're arguing the letter of RAW, here - and normally I'm all for that - but are we being a bit alarmist? The most common use for this metamagic feat is hardly a Selective AMS...which, I'll admit, would be strong, but hardly gamebreaking.

This is all very murky RAW territory (which again, I understand is the crux of MiB's thesis, and I'd agree that such ambiguity leaves something to be desired - especially given the already somewhat ambiguous nature of the Vancian magic system anyway). I think there are enough alternative explanations out there, though, that any DM worth his dice bag wouldn't allow Selective AMS to mean, "Team A wins the fight". IMO, the most convincing of these arguements is "If magic on your person is not suppressed, and I detonate a fireball on your person, you're going to get hit". Murky waters indeed, but I really don't see the sky falling.

Edit: Fireball's a bad example, but my point is that the word "suppress" does not equal the word "dispel", as has been pointed out by several other folks so far.

[A Man In Black]

Jeremiziah wrote:

Clearly, this wasn't meant to apply to Wall Of Iron, though, right?

It's obviously meant to be a way of not hitting your fighter with a cone of cold or fireball. Or, I suppose, Black Tentacles - Ogre mantioned BT might be problematic, maybe he could elaborate?

I get that we're arguing the letter of RAW, here - and normally I'm all for that - but are we being a bit alarmist? The most common use for this metamagic feat is hardly a Selective AMS...which, I'll admit, would be strong, but hardly gamebreaking.

Unless you torture grammar to make AMF somehow affect you as a spellcaster despite the fact that you're immune to it, then yes, it is quite gamebreaking. This has been common knowledge for years and years; the Initiate of Mystra feat gave similar abilities, and was later errataed because it was highly game-disruptive. The Cheater of Mystra was created in 2004.

I don't have any way to know what the intent of the developers is except by asking them. I don't know how I was supposed to know that this feat affects "Area: [foo]" spells but not "Effect: area of [bar] size" spells.

Quote:

I think there are enough alternative explanations out there, though, that any DM worth his dice bag wouldn't allow Selective AMS to mean, "Team A wins the fight". IMO, the most convincing of these arguements is "If magic on your person is not suppressed, and I detonate a fireball on your person, you're going to get hit". Murky waters indeed, but I really don't see the sky falling.

I spend a lot of time posting on these boards about character balance, although (and because!) I chiefly GM. Good character balance out of the box makes my life easier. I don't want this nonsense sprung on me in the middle of a fight; I want to be able to trust that a book isn't full of insanity that I need to line-item veto. That's lots of bookkeeping time that makes my job as a GM much less fun. If a player takes the feat, thinking it has [Powerful Effect], and I have to veto [Powerful Effect] in the middle of the session, now I have someone who wants to respec their character AND the potential for hurt feelings / a big ruleslawyer argument midgame. That harshes the mood and disrupts immersion.

It took me five minutes of cursory flipping through Pathfinder core to find spells that have game-disruptive or nonsensical interaction with this feat. If this level of playtesting diligence is what I can expect from the APG, why should I give Paizo my money the next time a supplement full of game options comes along?

[Pathos]

Beyond AMS what would these other spells be, that would break the game so with this feat?

[A Man In Black]

Pathos wrote:

Beyond AMS what would these other spells be, that would break the game so with this feat?

"Broken" is both "So strong it disrupts the game" and "This is nonfunctional/incomprehensible". For clarity's sake, the former is game-disruptive, the latter is nonsense.

From the top:

Acid Fog - Nonsense, Effects: area - How does being immune to obscured sight work? Not an issue with SKR's ruling.
Antimagic Field - Game-disruptive, Nonsense - What does "immunity" involve in this context? Some interpretations are overpowered, most are nonsensical. AMF is not well-written, which compounds this.
Black Tentacles - Game-disruptive - Already a very powerful spell, made even better.
Confusion - Nonsense, Targets: area - Works exactly like Fireball except a different effect, but wouldn't be eligible for Selective Spell under SKR's ruling.
Control Water - Nonsense - Being immune to this leads to nonsense results. Prooooobably not an issue in any game ever; be honest, you probably forgot about Control Water until you read this.
Control Weather - Highly game-disruptive, nonsense - You can make a tornado you and your allies are immune to. I'm not sure how fog you're immune to is supposed to work.
Control Winds - Highly game-disruptive - At level 12 (one level after you can cast Selective Control Winds at all), you're turning calm air unto hurricanes which don't affect you or your allies.
Darkness - Nonsense, Target: area - What does it mean to be immune to darkness? SKR's ruling moots this, though, since it targets an object which then radiates an effect.
Daylight - Nonsense, Target: area - Same as Darkness.
Deeper Darkness - Nonsense, Target: area - Same as Darkness
Greater Dispel Magic - Slight nonsense - Do you need to exclude spells by name, or creatures? Probably not a big issue.

I've found either two or three game-breakers in only the spells between A and D, depending on what it is exactly that AMF actually does. That's on top of the fact that simpler AOE save-or-defeats like Selective Fear and Selective Glitterdust are merely Very Good.

That said, if the intent is for the feat to affect only spells that have an Area: line (and not an Effects: or Target: line that affects an area), I haven't found anything completely nonsensical. It doesn't make the feat less overpowered or awkward, but it does make it actually work on pretty much every spell you'd want to apply it to.

[Scissors Lizard]

A Man In Black wrote:

If this level of playtesting diligence is what I can expect from the APG, why should I give Paizo my money the next time a supplement full of game options comes along?

Hate me for saying this, but you need to chill. This is a complex game and it bears mentioning that the Gamemastery Guide and Core Rulebook repeatedly advise GMs to adjust rules where necessary. This isn't chess and it isn't brain surgery. You're insisting on being rigid and complaining that the game doesn't hold up to your level of rigidity. If you don't like the feat don't use it. If you don't like the book, then the answer to your question is, don't spend your money next time. At the very least you could ease your tone on here a bit. They're not out of line for asking you to do so. You're being a diva.

[0gre]

A Man In Black wrote:

Pathos wrote:

Beyond AMS what would these other spells be, that would break the game so with this feat?

"Broken" is both "So strong it disrupts the game" and "This is nonfunctional/incomprehensible". For clarity's sake, the former is game-disruptive, the latter is nonsense.

From the top:

Acid Fog - Nonsense, Effects: area - How does being immune to obscured sight work? Not an issue with SKR's ruling.
Antimagic Field - Game-disruptive, Nonsense - What does "immunity" involve in this context? Some interpretations are overpowered, most are nonsensical. AMF is not well-written, which compounds this.
Black Tentacles - Game-disruptive - Already a very powerful spell, made even better.
Confusion - Nonsense, Targets: area - Works exactly like Fireball except a different effect, but wouldn't be eligible for Selective Spell under SKR's ruling.
Control Water - Nonsense - Being immune to this leads to nonsense results. Prooooobably not an issue in any game ever; be honest, you probably forgot about Control Water until you read this.
Control Weather - Highly game-disruptive, nonsense - You can make a tornado you and your allies are immune to. I'm not sure how fog you're immune to is supposed to work.
Control Winds - Highly game-disruptive - At level 12 (one level after you can cast Selective Control Winds at all), you're turning calm air unto hurricanes which don't affect you or your allies.
Darkness - Nonsense, Target: area - What does it mean to be immune to darkness? SKR's ruling moots this, though, since it targets an object which then radiates an effect.
Daylight - Nonsense, Target: area - Same as Darkness.
Deeper Darkness - Nonsense, Target: area - Same as Darkness
Greater Dispel Magic - Slight nonsense - Do you need to exclude spells by name, or creatures? Probably not a big issue.

I've found either two or three game-breakers in only the spells between A and D, depending on what it is exactly that AMF actually does. That's on top of the fact that simpler AOE save-or-defeats like...

While I agree that it's not extremely obvious it's also not that difficult to grasp. I am much more concerned with the fact that even with SKR's comments the feat seems seriously out of whack.

Entangle, Black Tentacles, already among the most spells of their level, bump them up a level and your friends are immune.

[wraithstrike]

Scissors Lizard wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

If this level of playtesting diligence is what I can expect from the APG, why should I give Paizo my money the next time a supplement full of game options comes along?

Hate me for saying this, but you need to chill. This is a complex game and it bears mentioning that the Gamemastery Guide and Core Rulebook repeatedly advise GMs to adjust rules where necessary. This isn't chess and it isn't brain surgery. You're insisting on being rigid and complaining that the game doesn't hold up to your level of rigidity. If you don't like the feat don't use it. If you don't like the book, then the answer to your question is, don't spend your money next time. At the very least you could ease your tone on here a bit. They're not out of line for asking you to do so. You're being a diva.

If a rule is written, 95% of us should read it the same way. This particular ability could be interpreted to work differently with every spell depending on the DM. I should not have to make a ruling on my own for every spell it possibly affects. It should be simple enough that I can glance at the feat, glance at the spell, and the game should keep moving forward. If the explanation in the book is not really helping me then what good is it.

The entire game being complex is ok, but one feat, not ok. His point was not that Paizo makes bad products, it was that certain things, like this feat did slip through the cracks, and it should be fixed.
I will just ban it from the game, until it is fixed, but many of us hate blanket banning. If it just affected 1 or 2 spells in a questionable manner I would fix it myself, but the list seems to be a long one.

I see you only have 20 post here. I will tell you that MiB can be overly harsh with his statements, sorry MiB, but his points normally stand regardless.

[wraithstrike]

0gre wrote:

While I agree that it's not extremely obvious it's also not that difficult to grasp.

You have a good understanding of the game. I can already see the nonsense coming out of the rules forum in the months to come from others than don't understand so well.

[Ernest Mueller]

Although I don't think this is a big WHARRGARBL game-breaker, it does seem like if all the other junky metamagic feats out there do level+2 and level+3 bumps for less powerful effects than this +1 level guy. Bump it to require level+2 and I have absolutely zero problem with it.

[wraithstrike]

Ernest Mueller wrote:

Although I don't think this is a big WHARRGARBL game-breaker, it does seem like if all the other junky metamagic feats out there do level+2 and level+3 bumps for less powerful effects than this +1 level guy. Bump it to require level+2 and I have absolutely zero problem with it.

The issue is that it is hard to tell exactly how it works for certain spells. I think saying the spell affect does not take appear in the space your ally is occupying would make more sense.

An example would be cloudkill. Now if the enemy bullrushes out of your square into the cloud you are SOL, and now he has the safe area. I do think this feat should be at a +2. I will probably rule it as the above example I have given. That way I dont have to ban it.

[Kyranor]

i would say that because AMF just suppresses and does not eliminate magic, you are immune and can cast out of it and can be cast at...so the best it could do would nullify magic weapons used against you.

which makes me want to make a room with a permanent AMF all along one wall with someone on the other side scrying into that room casting fireballs and such, having them wink out just before the wall only to enter back into existence just past the other side of the wall and fly into the room of death.

[A Man In Black]

Ernest Mueller wrote:

Although I don't think this is a big WHARRGARBL game-breaker, it does seem like if all the other junky metamagic feats out there do level+2 and level+3 bumps for less powerful effects than this +1 level guy. Bump it to require level+2 and I have absolutely zero problem with it.

Even at +2, every level 13 druid can chill out in an ally-friendly hurricane of exactly the correct size at least once a day, possibly twice, and it only gets worse from there. At level 15, it's a tornado (and they're doing it at least three times a day). At that point, it is quite literally a WHARRGARBL gamebreaker unless the party fights only truly huge enemies. This is after a house rule to nerf this feat!

[Blazej]

wraithstrike wrote:

0gre wrote:

While I agree that it's not extremely obvious it's also not that difficult to grasp.

You have a good understanding of the game. I can already see the nonsense coming out of the rules forum in the months to come from others than don't understand so well.

Nonsense will come out of the rules forum no matter what. I find it doubtful that the wording on this particular ability is as confusing or game breaking as been indicated by some in this thread.

While I am sure the spell might benefit from a different wording, I am not really willing to argue for it while the discussion is here.

[0gre]

wraithstrike wrote:

0gre wrote:

While I agree that it's not extremely obvious it's also not that difficult to grasp.

You have a good understanding of the game. I can already see the nonsense coming out of the rules forum in the months to come from others than don't understand so well.

*shrug*

No doubt. But that's water under the bridge at this point. Errata would help but as I said I'm more worried about what it does than I am about what it might do if you don't understand it.

[wraithstrike]

Blazej wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

0gre wrote:

While I agree that it's not extremely obvious it's also not that difficult to grasp.

You have a good understanding of the game. I can already see the nonsense coming out of the rules forum in the months to come from others than don't understand so well.

Nonsense will come out of the rules forum no matter what. I find it doubtful that the wording on this particular ability is as confusing or game breaking as been indicated by some in this thread.

While I am sure the spell might benefit from a different wording, I am not really willing to argue for it while the discussion is here.

LOL, true but I see no reason to make it easy for them. I think I understand it "well enough", but I still want the wording changed. I think I will ignore any rules debate on this one until it has a better explanation though.

[Jeremiziah]

I understand what you're saying, MiB. Although my personal level of emotion doesn't extend as far as yours does, here - the APG has made me much more likely to purchase future supplements, not less - I have to say I pretty much agree in principal with what you're saying.

I hate having this type of crappola sprung on me in mid-game, too, I guess the difference is I don't brook arguement when I say, "That's not how that's supposed to work, stop being a Munchkin. You can reselect a different Feat if you want to after the session's over".

It's actually much quicker and easier to deal with it that way rather than criticize Paizo's design philosophy as a whole, especially because from my perspective 99% of the material in the APG is brilliant, and not disruptive or particularly ambiguous.

Mark the original post as FAQ, hopefully when everybody gets home from GenCon, we can get a word.

[A Man In Black]

You know, I think Control Winds is the real money spell here, forget AMF. Normally, it's hugely destructive but really hard to use because the rest of the party needs to cluster together in the eye of the storm while the enemies are tossed around helplessly. With Selective Spell, the whole party gets to ignore the hellish storm raging around them, chasing down and beating any hapless windswamped enemies to death.

Plus, if there's anything you don't want to break, you'll probably have enough int/wis/cha to make sure it doesn't get broken, since you can target whatever you want for exclusion.

Aurora borealis localized entirely within your kitchen? Sure, why not?

Jeremiziah wrote:

It's actually much quicker and easier to deal with it that way rather than criticize Paizo's design philosophy as a whole, especially because from my perspective 99% of the material in the APG is brilliant, and not disruptive or particularly ambiguous.

Well, it's indicative of problems with the design philosophy as a whole as it pertains to magic. This isn't the first time that Paizo has had problems with "Fireball is fine, so this is fine." This isn't even a playtest result, where playtesting could show if Selective Fear or Selective Glitterdust are too good or just right; Selective Control Winds and Selective Antimagic Field are obvious gamebreakers, they don't even pass the scratch-and-sniff test.

That's probably a subject for another day. For now, I got a hair in my soup and I'm sore about it.

Blazej wrote:

I find it doubtful that the wording on this particular ability is as confusing or game breaking as been indicated by some in this thread.

You're not gonna hurt my feelings by calling me out by name, dude. No need for this allusion stuff.

[Ernest Mueller]

A Man In Black wrote:

Ernest Mueller wrote:

Although I don't think this is a big WHARRGARBL game-breaker, it does seem like if all the other junky metamagic feats out there do level+2 and level+3 bumps for less powerful effects than this +1 level guy. Bump it to require level+2 and I have absolutely zero problem with it.

Even at +2, every level 13 druid can chill out in an ally-friendly hurricane of exactly the correct size at least once a day, possibly twice, and it only gets worse from there. At level 15, it's a tornado (and they're doing it at least three times a day). At that point, it is quite literally a WHARRGARBL gamebreaker unless the party fights only truly huge enemies. This is after a house rule to nerf this feat!

I weep. Truly, I will never be able to run a campaign again after this. It will be impossible due to this feat. I am left with only the decision to either give up RPGs entirely or to select one less broken. Luckily there are so many rules lawyers out there that can tell me which one, if any, is not BR0K3N!!!

[Name Violation]

Ernest Mueller wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Ernest Mueller wrote:

Although I don't think this is a big WHARRGARBL game-breaker, it does seem like if all the other junky metamagic feats out there do level+2 and level+3 bumps for less powerful effects than this +1 level guy. Bump it to require level+2 and I have absolutely zero problem with it.

Even at +2, every level 13 druid can chill out in an ally-friendly hurricane of exactly the correct size at least once a day, possibly twice, and it only gets worse from there. At level 15, it's a tornado (and they're doing it at least three times a day). At that point, it is quite literally a WHARRGARBL gamebreaker unless the party fights only truly huge enemies. This is after a house rule to nerf this feat!

I weep. Truly, I will never be able to run a campaign again after this. It will be impossible due to this feat. I am left with only the decision to either give up RPGs entirely or to select one less broken. Luckily there are so many rules lawyers out there that can tell me which one, if any, is not BR0K3N!!!

or you can just make the feat off limits to players

[Tomathy Jones]

Quote:

Aurora borealis localized entirely within your kitchen? Sure, why not?

I am reminded of this.

[A Man In Black]

Ernest Mueller wrote:

I weep. Truly, I will never be able to run a campaign again after this. It will be impossible due to this feat. I am left with only the decision to either give up RPGs entirely or to select one less broken. Luckily there are so many rules lawyers out there that can tell me which one, if any, is not BR0K3N!!!

Man, I love coming to the friendly local farmer's market. The produce can be pretty variable, but as long as you know who you're buying from, you can get pretty good stuff. Especially from Old Man Izo, everything he's got out is good food. In fact, I think I'll buy this mixed basket of Izo's apples, pears, and grapes. They all look delicious!

*bites into an apple from the basket*

Ugh, this is rotten through! And I should have realized, it even looks and smells rotten. Did he even check these apples? Bah, now I need to check this whole basket before I eat them, that's a bunch of extra hassle when I just wanted some fruit. I'm not sure if I should even pick up any fruit from Izo next time I go to the market, if he's not even checking it. I wonder how many people just took a basket home without realizing that they've gotten rotten fruit, too. I'm going to go give Pa Izo a piece of my mind.

[Jason Nelson]

Alternatively, think about the feat this way, as even the name is the same:

Selective Channeling - exclude a number of allies equal to stat mod from your channel energy.

Selective Spell - exclude a number of allies equal to stat mod from your spell.

Perhaps the missing link is as simple as that Selective Spell is supposed to work like Selective Channeling, which means it was only intended to work with spells that work like channel energy does. Namely, spells that are instantaneous.

If Selective Spell only applies to instantaneous effects, all of the weird wackiness in the whole thread vanishes immediately and it becomes a sane, logical, and useful but not overpowered feat.

It's been said before by others, so I guess just add me to the chorus. Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. We'll have to wait for the errata to see.

[Reckless]

Ok, now find the lowest level AoE spell that you can quicken and throw against the party while your minions tear them to shreds every npc wizoclerdruisumbarditch has to have that spell ready from now on.

Go!

[Zmar]

Wasn't it that the speell effect upon entering of the antimagic field has been supressed untill it left the AMF? So, as I'd understand it, when you exclude yourself from the AMF, you are suddenly a valid target for spells again?

[Kain Darkwind]

Ok.

Let's say your understanding of selected Antimagic field is that you can cast spells out of it, because it doesn't block line of effect.

If you selected yourself to be immune to the effects of antimagic, you are the exact opposite of 'immune to magic'. Your magic items work, you can cast spells out of the antimagic field, but in turn, anyone can cast magic on you.

Not really sure what the spell is doing for you other than keeping decked out melee characters from pimping you.

(Edit) Damn Zmar for ninja-ing me!

[Tomathy Jones]

Mmm, steamed hams.

[Kabump]

Jason Nelson wrote:

Alternatively, think about the feat this way, as even the name is the same:

Selective Channeling - exclude a number of allies equal to stat mod from your channel energy.

Selective Spell - exclude a number of allies equal to stat mod from your spell.

Perhaps the missing link is as simple as that Selective Spell is supposed to work like Selective Channeling, which means it was only intended to work with spells that work like channel energy does. Namely, spells that are instantaneous.

If Selective Spell only applies to instantaneous effects, all of the weird wackiness in the whole thread vanishes immediately and it becomes a sane, logical, and useful but not overpowered feat.

It's been said before by others, so I guess just add me to the chorus. Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. We'll have to wait for the errata to see.

This makes sense to me. Its probably a case of poor wording on the intent of the feat, rather than lack of play testing or just letting it slide regardless.

Again, it sucks to have to wait for errata to see if this gets clarified, but no matter how meticulous you are in proof reading, editing, balancing a book of this nature, SOMETHING will slip through the cracks, especially in a project as large as this. I dont think its because of lack of effort on the fine staff either, and I hardly think its a reason to not purchase anything from paizo in the future, but I see no issue with bringing up concern over it. What I think gets AMiB so much hostility is the tone in which he expresses his concerns at times, however :) Hence why I earlier stated he always makes things interesting. More often than not, I agree with his points, but not the manner/tone of how he goes about expressing them.

On an edited note, this seems like a great time to make use of the FAQ feature that has been added.... :)

[A Man In Black]

Reckless wrote:

Ok, now find the lowest level AoE spell that you can quicken and throw against the party while your minions tear them to shreds every npc wizoclerdruisumbarditch has to have that spell ready from now on.

Go!

Turning the game into MAD with broken character options doesn't fix anything. Nobody is having fun when the party steamrolls all opposition, nor is anyone having fun when the opposition steamrolls the party. It's not a race to the bottom.

Quote:

various people mentioning instantaneous effects

That's probably the cleanest change, although it doesn't resolve the area effect = Area: issues.

[james maissen]

There are quite a few spells that are strange for this feat, which is why when I first heard about it I asked for the exact wording.

Earthquake is a weird one that no one has mentioned yet.

Repulsion and the antilife spells are reasonable uses.

Many of the things listed in this thread are effects rather than areas which is an easy mistake.

Now don't think that this is the fraile wizard in the selective antimagic shell.. it's the fully buffed cleric or fighter, etc.

It really is as bad as you think that it is.

-James

[wraithstrike]

Jason Nelson wrote:

Alternatively, think about the feat this way, as even the name is the same:

Selective Channeling - exclude a number of allies equal to stat mod from your channel energy.

Selective Spell - exclude a number of allies equal to stat mod from your spell.

Perhaps the missing link is as simple as that Selective Spell is supposed to work like Selective Channeling, which means it was only intended to work with spells that work like channel energy does. Namely, spells that are instantaneous.

If Selective Spell only applies to instantaneous effects, all of the weird wackiness in the whole thread vanishes immediately and it becomes a sane, logical, and useful but not overpowered feat.

It's been said before by others, so I guess just add me to the chorus. Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. We'll have to wait for the errata to see.

This would be ok.

[magnuskn]

wraithstrike wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

Alternatively, think about the feat this way, as even the name is the same:

Selective Channeling - exclude a number of allies equal to stat mod from your channel energy.

Selective Spell - exclude a number of allies equal to stat mod from your spell.

Perhaps the missing link is as simple as that Selective Spell is supposed to work like Selective Channeling, which means it was only intended to work with spells that work like channel energy does. Namely, spells that are instantaneous.

If Selective Spell only applies to instantaneous effects, all of the weird wackiness in the whole thread vanishes immediately and it becomes a sane, logical, and useful but not overpowered feat.

It's been said before by others, so I guess just add me to the chorus. Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. We'll have to wait for the errata to see.

This would be ok.

Already adapted as a house-rule for my campaign. ;)