MiB,
Here is a quick reference list, hopefully to dispel some of the issues. Personally, I think Jason's suggestion that the feat only work for instantaneous spells a good one as well.
-Acid Fog: Effect spell, this feat does not apply.
-Anti-magic Field: You points have been noted.
-Black Tentacles: This being a major issue in my opinion (Jason's suggestion fixes this, as this spell has a duration).
-Confusion: Target spell, this feat does not apply.
-Control Water/Weather/Winds: All these are Area spells and can be abused...however they are all Duration spells and would also be fixed by Jason's suggestion.
-Darkness and Daylight are both Target effects, this feat would not apply.
-Deeper Darkness function just like Darkness and is also a Target spell.
-Dispel Magic: Would work but only if cast as an Area Dispel, not as a Targeted Dispel.
Bear in mind I was able to reference these spells, their type (Area, Effect, Target, etc) in less than 10 minutes for each, and type this post up. Thats not a lot of time, really.
Just a suggestion folks, take a closer look at the spell descriptions. Right at the top, usually right between Range and Duration it says in Bold just what type of spell it is: Area, Target, Effect, etc.
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 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?
Not at all. AMiB likes this game, and is simply being very vocal about something that alarms him. I am quite alarmed myself: vague wording, potentially broken mechanics, doesn't mesh well with a lot of core mechanics...let's just say I've seen a game start down this road before, and the end destination was a mechanical reboot that spawned 4e.
Playtesting is great, but in the case of a game like this, particularly with caster class features, spellcasting feats, and spells, someone literally needs to take anything that Paizo thinking of publishing and hold it up line by line to see how it is going to mesh with every spell you have previously published.
Playtesting is great, but in the case of a game like this, particularly with caster class features, spellcasting feats, and spells, someone literally needs to take anything that Paizo thinking of publishing and hold it up line by line to see how it is going to mesh with every spell you have previously published.
Not for Selective Spell. Anyone with basic experience in 3.5 will just look at the feat and see that it's broken as written.
Okay. So where would I go about finding that in the rules, instead of needing to ask the developers personally what they meant?Individual spells are pretty clear at stating whether they're Area, Effect, or Target.
:)
|
Note that the feat description reference area (of) effect twice, and never mentions effect of area, so I think aMiB's original presumption was false. Misreading the rules does not make the rules broken. However....
Now, what we're left with is a bunch of spells very few people would have a problem with this feat affecting, a few quirky spell interactions caused more by poor wording within the spells' descriptions than by this feat, and a few spells that are either "borderline broken" to begin with or which just become too good with selection and only 1 level higher.
Then there's the obvious problem that this is way better than any +1 level metamagic feat out there to begin with. I mean, come one, they +1 leveled elemental spell for crying out loud. Energy Substitution was a same level spell in 3.5. Admittedly Energy Admixture was +1 and Elemental Spell includes its effect, but how does lowering the amount of energy damage you do (splitting it between two types of energy) really benefit you unless you don't know what a creature is weak against and you're just hoping to do 1/2 your normal damage somehow?
The prerequisite of 10th level (10 ranks spellcraft) seems like... [irony]"Ok, you've already won the game by playing a Spellcaster who made it to this level, let's just speed it up some, shall we?"[/irony]
I agree with aMiB regarding the poorness of this feat. I think there was bound to be a few things like this in a "splatbook" of this size and scope. Still not as broken as Feats 101's "Overwhelming Beauty" but still....
Hey, look, a Tower Shield can block an Antimagic Field! Cool! (read burst and emination, page 214.)
Already adapted as a house-rule for my campaign. ;)
Ditto.
The adjustment to exclude any Area spells that have a duration seems a perfect adjustment to this feat. Without those particular spells (mainly battlefield control, like Black Tentacles...) it becomes much more reasonable.
As Jason said earlier, this seems to have either just been left out or accidentally left out of the feat description. Either way, I am adopting this ruling as well.
Otherwise, the spells I've looked at so far with instantaneous durations don't seem a great issue. On the topic of Earthquake, which was brought up earlier in the thread, its an 8th level spell already? Is a Selective Earthquake really any scarier than Meteor Swarm or Wish? Perhaps in very select circumstances, but even so, this doesn't seem a great issue to me. Not to mention, the effects of Earthquake can easily be avoided with levitation or flight.
To MiB: I forgot this in my previous post. I agree with you completely about the text of the feat. Its not very clear on whether it is saying Area or Effect spells (or both), so thats obviously a bit of an editing oversight. The people writing the rules already know what they mean, readers might not, hence the confusion and why the wording might make sense to the ones writing it and not necessarily to the ones reading it.
I have to go on record as stating I agree with the OP's protests and that the wording of this feat leaves a lot of potential for abuse.
However I also must state that I think the tone set in the beginning was a bit harsh.
At my tables items like this feat rarely cause too much issue and I have to admit it is because I am often the first one to attempt many of the above exloits :-). And so as the GM I am also one of the first to openly admit that I have to house-rule on certain feats for game balance. My group plays pretty High Power games anyway but I think hurricane winds with the PCs wandering safely through could get a bit excessive. My real only additions to the discussion are:
1- in agreement with this feat needs re-wording or errata
2- its okay to be very heartfelt and I understand getting worked up about a game you love but starting with negativity often leads to more negativity.
3- changing the wording to affect only instant spells as previously mentioned seems a decent fix for now.
Finally #4- you are only playing the game wrong when you and your players stop having fun... if your players wanted to run around with hurricanes all around them and slaughter all enemies by being immune to black tentacles and such- AND you as GM did not mind then go ahead... I can just imagine the battles in such conditions ;-P
Here is a quick reference list, hopefully to dispel some of the issues. Personally, I think Jason's suggestion that the feat only work for instantaneous spells a good one as well.-Acid Fog: Effect spell, this feat does not apply.
-Anti-magic Field: You points have been noted.
-Black Tentacles: This being a major issue in my opinion (Jason's suggestion fixes this, as this spell has a duration).
-Confusion: Target spell, this feat does not apply.
-Control Water/Weather/Winds: All these are Area spells and can be abused...however they are all Duration spells and would also be fixed by Jason's suggestion.
-Darkness and Daylight are both Target effects, this feat would not apply.
-Deeper Darkness function just like Darkness and is also a Target spell.
-Dispel Magic: Would work but only if cast as an Area Dispel, not as a Targeted Dispel.Bear in mind I was able to reference these spells, their type (Area, Effect, Target, etc) in less than 10 minutes for each, and type this post up. Thats not a lot of time, really.
Just a suggestion folks, take a closer look at the spell descriptions. Right at the top, usually right between Range and Duration it says in Bold just what type of spell it is: Area, Target, Effect, etc.
Agreed. I don't see the issue regarding any ambiguity with a spell's type. P.213-215 describe what a spell's type is under "Aiming a Spell" and each spell's description clearly states whether it affects a target, area, or is an effect.
However, this feat is just ripe for confusion at the least and I'm not liking some of the potential combos.
I don't think it's implicit that an effect which is an area is not an area effect. That's ridiculous.
Then stop looking at it that way. There are spells which affect an area, spells that affect a target, and spells that are effects. A spell which creates an effect can summon a thing (like Wall of Iron), which in turn will occupy an area. That still doesn't equate it to a spell which actually is an area spell according to the rules. It's quite clear, looking at each spell in the core book, to determine if the spell is an area spell, effect spell, or target spell.
That said, the wording of the feat is such that it opens up abusive forms of interpretation. Thus…
I agree with your second sentence.
Antimagic field does not block line of effect or line of sight. Further, spells like stone to flesh do not require line of effect.
Could you please quote some rules that support the bolded portion? It was my understanding that ALL target spells needed line of effect unless stated otherwise. Stone to flesh WOULD require line of effect, but magic jar would not.
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 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?
Quoted for TRUTH.
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.
I'll try not to drive you guys TOO crazy. :P
That's probably the cleanest change, although it doesn't resolve the area effect = Area: issues.
I don't see why you are having such a hard time...unless, of course, you are being intentionally obtuse. If a spell doesn't have an AREA line, than it is not an area effect spell. Simple.
|
I don't see why you are having such a hard time...unless, of course, you are being intentionally obtuse. If a spell doesn't have an AREA line, than it is not an area effect spell. Simple.Where's that definition in the rules?
Core Rulebook, p. 213 - 214:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself.
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
Area: Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below. (burst, emanation, spread, cone, cylinder, line, sphere, creatures, etc.)
I don't think it's intuitive that a spell which summons sticky strands in an area isn't an area effect spell, while a spell that summons grasping tentacles in an area is.
According to the rules above, Web is an "effect" because it creates something from nothing (sticky strands from thin air). Black tentacles is an "area" spell because it changes an area (turns the ground itself into grasping tentacles).
I don't think it's intuitive that a spell which creates a ball of fire is an area effect spell, while a spell that creates a ball of fog is not.
Fog Cloud is an "effect" spell because it creates something persistant from nothing. Fireball is an instantaneous force that affects a 3 dimensional space defined as an "area."
I don't think it's intuitive that a spell which blinds everyone in a radius is an area effect spell, while a spell that confuses everyone in a radius isn't.
On pg. 215, an "area" spell defined as "creatures" specifically states that "it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select." That's an important distinction and the difference between Glitterdust and Confusion.
Now... is any of that intuitive? Debatable. :)
If something is debatably intuitive, then it could stand to be made clearer.
I'll certainly agree with you on that point.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Except that Confusion is a spell which affects "all creatures in a 15-ft.-radius burst".If something is debatably intuitive, then it could stand to be made clearer.
Confusion is an anomaly there and perhaps lives up to its name in that regard. It is interesting that unlike say a fireball, confusion only hits those in that area that you can see (to be able to target).
-James
Interesting. I would always assume "all creatures" to mean "all creatures," not "all creatures you can see."
As opposed to a spell like, say, slow that affects XYZ number of creatures within a specific proximity, but you have to choose which creatures are affected. With a spell like confusion or waves of exhaustion it affects every creature in the area and you can't choose to affect or not affect such creatures.
Unless you have Selective Spell... :)
Except that Confusion is a spell which affects "all creatures in a 15-ft.-radius burst".If something is debatably intuitive, then it could stand to be made clearer.
Confusion is an anomaly there and perhaps lives up to its name in that regard. It is interesting that unlike say a fireball, confusion only hits those in that area that you can see (to be able to target).
-James
Interesting. I would always assume "all creatures" to mean "all creatures," not "all creatures you can see."
As opposed to a spell like, say, slow that affects XYZ number of creatures within a specific proximity, but you have to choose which creatures are affected. With a spell like confusion or waves of exhaustion it affects every creature in the area and you can't choose to affect or not affect such creatures.
Unless you have Selective Spell... :)
Any spell with a target line requires you to see the target(s) in question. Failing that, you can still target them by touching them.
If you can't see or touch the target, you probably shouldn't be using target spells, but area/touch spells.
You are the GM. Look your player in the eye and say, "No, you cannot have these feats in the game I'm running." They will whine and complain and then you can kill their PC around the next corner of the dungeon. Sometimes you just have to go old school on your players to get them to listen.
Also, use the KISS principle and life will be much easier and more fun. This is a role playing game not an exercise in rules-lawyering. If the rules ever get in the way of the story or fun...you really need to chuck the rules...
You are the GM. Look your player in the eye and say, "No, you cannot have these feats in the game I'm running." They will whine and complain and then you can kill their PC around the next corner of the dungeon. Sometimes you just have to go old school on your players to get them to listen.
Also, use the KISS principle and life will be much easier and more fun. This is a role playing game not an exercise in rules-lawyering. If the rules ever get in the way of the story or fun...you really need to chuck the rules...
No the first and yes to the second.
No the first and yes to the second.You are the GM. Look your player in the eye and say, "No, you cannot have these feats in the game I'm running." They will whine and complain and then you can kill their PC around the next corner of the dungeon. Sometimes you just have to go old school on your players to get them to listen.
Also, use the KISS principle and life will be much easier and more fun. This is a role playing game not an exercise in rules-lawyering. If the rules ever get in the way of the story or fun...you really need to chuck the rules...
Ravingdork, the kill the PC comment was in jest (although killing one on occasion is not a bad thing). I do think it is okay to disallow the feats if you want. If you are the GM, you have the right to say "No" sometimes.
Hrm.
VictorCrackus takes the thread out of his computer. Looking over it in his infinite wisdom, he quickly decided the perfect measure of action. Being a being of perfect wisdom, he knew his choices would rule over all in -his- gaming world. Thus, he would apply common sense to the thread, and let it soak for six days. Then apply it to the game on the seventh day.
I don't think it's intuitive that a spell which summons sticky strands in an area isn't an area effect spell, while a spell that summons grasping tentacles in an area is.
I don't think it's intuitive that a spell which creates a ball of fire is an area effect spell, while a spell that creates a ball of fog is not.
I don't think it's intuitive that a spell which blinds everyone in a radius is an area effect spell, while a spell that confuses everyone in a radius isn't.
There's no logical link between spells with an "Area:" listing, and many, many spells which affect an area aren't "Area:" spells.
There's no logical link between several areas of the rules if you want to look at it that way. But I wasn't commenting on whether or not the rules are intuitive or logical, I was commenting on the implication you made earlier that it was difficult to determine if a spell is an area effect spell or simply an effect spell. It's not.
Regardless, I do understand your point of view.
You are the GM. Look your player in the eye and say, "No, you cannot have these feats in the game I'm running." They will whine and complain and then you can kill their PC around the next corner of the dungeon. Sometimes you just have to go old school on your players to get them to listen.
Also, use the KISS principle and life will be much easier and more fun. This is a role playing game not an exercise in rules-lawyering. If the rules ever get in the way of the story or fun...you really need to chuck the rules...
You mean...since there are some rotten apples in the basket, I should stop buying baskets from Pa Izo's produce market entirely?
The value of a game product is diminished significantly if I need to go through it and make a list of line-item vetoes before the players use it in the game. Particularly in the case of options which are so poorly written that they don't even make any sense. Any pagecount spent on these options is useless to me, and I have to spend a bunch of extra time editing the book for myself in order to make any use of it.
Also, your particular idea of "old-school" is "old and busted." Feel free to deposit it in an appropriate receptacle.
I've GM'd Pathfinder since last November. So, be careful with labeling my ideas as purely old-school. However, I did play DnD and many other roleplaying games in my youth. One thing I can tell you for certain, I do not ever remember a single rules discussions in all my years of roleplaying. You know what I remember: the stories that were produced by like-minded individuals having fun. If you find a rule does not work to produce fun, then take it out. This entire rules as law movement is not seemly for a pen and paper RPG...
|
AMF suppresses spells that are in the area, but doesn't dispel them. yes? That to me doesn't mean that spells can wink through, or that they get stopped indefinitely. They pause in the AMF until it's dispelled or it moves, then they continue as they were going to before.
As for Area vs. Effect: Area, I'm just gonna logic it, instead of following the M:tG "Creature Type" style ruling.
I have no intention of going through a book and line-by-line vetoing it. I also allow all books as sources of options unless specifically stated otherwise. However, before a player takes an ability (and during character creation) I say: Show me the rules text for that ability/spell(if im not familiar with it). Then, if it looks problematic, I either houserule it or disallow it.
I'm amused that in my first thread after a several-month-long hiatus, we've turned up awkward, vague, and/or incomplete rules text in not just a brand new feat, but two old spells from PF core. I missed this.
Paizo's core competency is fluff, not crunch. I thought this was obvious to all by now. That's why the APs and modules are so amazing, but mechanics like CMB/CMD don't really work out, most of the 3.5 fixes don't fix 3.5 and there are things like this feat or the summoner.
I haven't dug deeply into the summoner yet, since nobody's been considering making a new character lately. Should I be worried?
I don't have the APG (yet?), so I cannot comment on the final version, but the playtest version was insanely overpowered. Just have a look at the relevant forums...
|
That's OK MiB, I will always be behind you - we need you as a balance (cheap pun intended) factor who reminds everybody why metagame is important. You could be a little more cuddly at it but hey, that's nowhere close to accusing disputants of being a failure of human existence anyway.
And re: Summoner broken ... sigh. More broken than straight Wizard ? Wake me up if that happens.
And re: Summoner broken ... sigh. More broken than straight Wizard ? Wake me up if that happens.
So you think new classes should be balanced compared to the class everyone agrees is broken overpowered? :)
|
|
Summoner is not really broken at all, except in so far as some people are now calling it "nerfed to uselessness" (I am not one of those people, I think it's spot on). If you want to look at a class in the final APG that could be broken, look at the Witch.
I agree, though, it's good to see you back, MiB. Why the several-month-long hiatus?
From what I've seen of the APG classes each and every one of them has groups saying they are brokenly powerful, other groups saying they are balanced, and still other groups who think they have been nerfed into uselessness. That to me says they are probably pretty balanced.
|
I like the Pa Izo analogy, made me laugh.
I thank Man In Black for bringing this up. I haven't got the APG yet and i've already got a bit of errata.
I will concur that Paizo's strength is in fluff but so far i've had very little to house-rule. However, my players are quite chilled out about not knowing all of the rules and not coming up with odd things that I have to fix.
Veering a bit off-topic
The most interesting thing in this thread, to my mind, was AMIB's suggestion that getting all emotional showed that he regards this as an important thing.
I think that's a peculiar mistake to make. If things are truly important to you then your focus will be upon the solution, not on your feelings.
Indulging our emotions is a sign that we regard ourselves as more important than the problem.
For example
When my young cousin went missing for a few hours on holiday last year my aunt was probably fit to burst with negative emotion but she was courteously forceful with everyone she encountered because she knew that indulging her emotions was something that could wait.
Similarly
It's always a sign that a relationship is over when the couple are brooding over he said / she said rather than deciding to find ways to mend the problem.
I might be wrong, but I don't think I'm the only person who has this perspective. So, perhaps AMIB should understand that many of us do not accept that finding something to be important permits one to no longer be civil.
Paizo's core competency is fluff, not crunch. I thought this was obvious to all by now. That's why the APs and modules are so amazing, but mechanics like CMB/CMD don't really work out, most of the 3.5 fixes don't fix 3.5 and there are things like this feat or the summoner.
I'm amused that in my first thread after a several-month-long hiatus, we've turned up awkward, vague, and/or incomplete rules text in not just a brand new feat, but two old spells from PF core. I missed this.
Nope, that is pretty much just your opinion. Although it is just as valid as other complaints about Paizo and other companies (Blizzard, Apple, Microsoft, WotC) being incompetent in some fashion deemed by the some given person.