Nope, that is pretty much just your opinion.
Hm, you are right. Let me rephrase that:
The way I see it, Paizo's core competency is fluff, not crunch. Their APs and modules are amazing, but a lot of mechanics are not, as evidenced by the fact that CMB/CMD don't really work out, most of the 3.5 fixes don't fix 3.5 and there are things like Selective Spell or the summoner.
Although it is just as valid as other complaints about Paizo being incompetent in some fashion deemed by the some given person.
I didn't call them incompetent. It is simply my observation that the quality of their mechanics doesn't reach the quality of their writing. While this is my subjective judgement, I am not the first to mention this, or to think so, as many posts here show.
the fact that CMB/CMD don't really work out
They've been working pretty well for me. I built some stock 4th level warriors with 10 point buy and Guisarms that totally tripped up (pun intended) my party of 5th/6th adventurers.
Where do the rules state that your spells are not part of you?
A drow has 3 buff spells on them, you cast dispel magic at the drow, do the spells get the benefit of the drow's spell resistance? No
If you are counterspelling a drow wizard do you have to get through their spell resistance? No.
In both of those cases the spells that were cast by the drow are not considered to be part of the drow.
Where do the rules state that your spells are not part of you?
A drow has 3 buff spells on them, you cast dispel magic at the drow, do the spells get the benefit of the drow's spell resistance? No
If you are counterspelling a drow wizard do you have to get through their spell resistance? No.
In both of those cases the spells that were cast by the drow are not considered to be part of the drow.
Of course that has nothing to do with your argument and everything to do with the fact that dispel magic does not allow for SR.
Watch it with the misinformation, bub. We're onto you.
Where do the rules state that your spells are not part of you?
A drow has 3 buff spells on them, you cast dispel magic at the drow, do the spells get the benefit of the drow's spell resistance? No
If you are counterspelling a drow wizard do you have to get through their spell resistance? No.
In both of those cases the spells that were cast by the drow are not considered to be part of the drow.
Of course that has nothing to do with your argument and everything to do with the fact that dispel magic does not allow for SR.
Watch it with the misinformation, bub. We're onto you.
Dispel magic doesn't target creatures but spells. It's not dispel creature. /baffle
Dispel magic doesn't target creatures but spells. It's not dispel creature. /baffleWhere do the rules state that your spells are not part of you?
A drow has 3 buff spells on them, you cast dispel magic at the drow, do the spells get the benefit of the drow's spell resistance? No
If you are counterspelling a drow wizard do you have to get through their spell resistance? No.
In both of those cases the spells that were cast by the drow are not considered to be part of the drow.
Of course that has nothing to do with your argument and everything to do with the fact that dispel magic does not allow for SR.
Watch it with the misinformation, bub. We're onto you.
The target line specifically says "one spellcaster, creature, or object."
Therefore it absolutely does target creatures.
While this is my subjective judgement, I am not the first to mention this, or to think so, as many posts here show.
Sure, just like other peoples own subjective judgements relating to things made by varying products (like Apple's iPad, WotC's 4th Edition, Blizzard's WoW) are also not the first to mention those perceived lack of quality that they have. I respect your comments just as much as ones they give.
Malaclypse, I see how weird things can come out in a game full of sub-systems (this thread is an example).
Nevertheless, in my experience, CMB/CMD work great. The way you use them can vary (as an example, the fighter is better for a repeated use on average enemies, the barbarian for single attempt on abig one) but overall the game experience improved a lot.
YMMV, of course.
While this is my subjective judgement, I am not the first to mention this, or to think so, as many posts here show.Sure, just like other peoples own subjective judgements relating to things made by varying products (like Apple's iPad, WotC's 4th Edition, Blizzard's WoW) are also not the first to mention those perceived lack of quality that they have. I respect your comments just as much as ones they give.
Your insults are not as veiled as you seem to think. I would appreciate if you could restrain yourself on this board.
Your insults are not as veiled as you seem to think.
Pot, kettle, glass houses and stones, etc.
Your insults are not as veiled as you seem to think.Pot, kettle, glass houses and stones, etc.
A critical discussion of Paizo products is ok, while ad hominem attacks on posters are not. So where do I attack other posters on this board?
Your insults are not as veiled as you seem to think. I would appreciate if you could restrain yourself on this board.While this is my subjective judgement, I am not the first to mention this, or to think so, as many posts here show.Sure, just like other peoples own subjective judgements relating to things made by varying products (like Apple's iPad, WotC's 4th Edition, Blizzard's WoW) are also not the first to mention those perceived lack of quality that they have. I respect your comments just as much as ones they give.
I am sorry if you feel my comments on your statements are an attack on you.
A critical discussion of Paizo products is ok, while ad hominem attacks on posters are not. So where do I attack other posters on this board?Your insults are not as veiled as you seem to think.Pot, kettle, glass houses and stones, etc.
There were no ad hominem attacks in blazej's post. His post was exactly as insulting to you as you were to Paizo, and you accusation of him is more insulting.
There were no ad hominem attacks in blazej's post. His post was exactly as insulting to you as you were to Paizo, and you accusation of him is more insulting.
He apologized, so that's ok for me about that.
I'm surprised however that you feel I insulted Paizo? Yes, the first post was phrased badly, that's why I clarified it. Do you see my opinion that their writing is superb but some mechanics are not as an insult? And if so, could you maybe advise me on how to state my opinion in better terms?
Or do you already see my critical view of the Selective Spell feat or the playtest summoner as an insult?
There were no ad hominem attacks in blazej's post. His post was exactly as insulting to you as you were to Paizo, and you accusation of him is more insulting.He apologized, so that's ok for me about that.
I'm surprised however that you feel I insulted Paizo? Yes, the first post was phrased badly, that's why I clarified it. Do you see my opinion that their writing is superb but some mechanics are not as an insult? And if so, could you maybe advise me on how to state my opinion in better terms?
Or do you already see my critical view of the Selective Spell feat or the playtest summoner as an insult?
Read more carefully.
I said:
1+1 = ?
There were no ad hominem attacks in blazej's post. His post was exactly as insulting to you as you were to Paizo, and you accusation of him is more insulting.He apologized, so that's ok for me about that.
I'm surprised however that you feel I insulted Paizo? Yes, the first post was phrased badly, that's why I clarified it. Do you see my opinion that their writing is superb but some mechanics are not as an insult? And if so, could you maybe advise me on how to state my opinion in better terms?
Or do you already see my critical view of the Selective Spell feat or the playtest summoner as an insult?
Read more carefully.
I said:
Blazej did not make an ad hominem attack against you. In other words, he did not insult you.
Your post was exactly as insulting as Blazej's. 1+1 = ?
Now I'm confused. First you accuse me of insulting Paizo. Then you tell me he didn't insult me, even after I accepted his apology. And now you state I insulted him? What?
First you accuse me of insulting Paizo.
False.
First you accuse me of insulting Paizo.False.
Oh, this is getting stupid. I don't want to be involved in some kind of flame war, so: you win!
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Oh, this is getting stupid. I don't want to be involved in some kind of flame war, so: you win!First you accuse me of insulting Paizo.False.
No, sir, you win the internet for the day for realizing in time that there are no winners in a poo-shovel fight. Cooler heads prevail! Huzzah!
Now I'm confused. First you accuse me of insulting Paizo. Then you tell me he didn't insult me, even after I accepted his apology. And now you state I insulted him? What?
He didn't apologize, he apologized that you saw an insult where there was none.
But let's move on.
I'm curious how you think CMD/CMB doesn't work however.
He didn't apologize, he apologized that you saw an insult where there was none.Now I'm confused. First you accuse me of insulting Paizo. Then you tell me he didn't insult me, even after I accepted his apology. And now you state I insulted him? What?
Precisely. He was being polite.
I apologize for this all.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Sigh...this feat makes me sad. I was really hoping for better from paizo, but this kinda badly done power creep is what lead to the death of many o systems. I was kinda hoping for PF to last a decade before needing a reboot....
It's all part of my secret evil plot to destroy Paizo. They'd never suspect the ice devil. No one ever does... until it's too late. :)
Selective Spell Feat
Summoners and CMB!
I am so confused.
|
Sigh...this feat makes me sad. I was really hoping for better from paizo, but this kinda badly done power creep is what lead to the death of many o systems. I was kinda hoping for PF to last a decade before needing a reboot....
If you look up "complete overreaction" in the dictionary, there's a screencap of this next to it. Sorry, CN, but Pathfinder does not need a reboot merely because of this feat, I assure you. I'm playing it right now and having loads of fun.
I knew we were missing something in this thread.We need some Cleric heavy armor proficiency discussion here ASAP.
Why did they take heavy armor away from the cleric? They should have at least given him something cool as a replacement...maybe a KATANA?!
Katanas are weak. Chainsaw swords FTW!
Nonsense. Katanas are the strongest and best sword ever made, able to cut straight through concrete and/or a wall of force. Chainsaws are for kittens.
Katanas are weak. Chainsaw swords FTW!Nonsense. Katanas are the strongest and best sword ever made, able to cut straight through concrete and/or a wall of force. Chainsaws are for kittens.
Chainsaw-Kitana's Dual Wielded by WearKitten Space Marines with Jet Packs
|
|
Chainsaw-Katanas Dual Wielded by Cyborg Zombie Nazi Were-Kitten Space Marines with Jet Packs and Rocket LaunchersKatanas are weak. Chainsaw swords FTW!Nonsense. Katanas are the strongest and best sword ever made, able to cut straight through concrete and/or a wall of force. Chainsaws are for kittens.
Fixed :)
Chainsaw-Kitana's Dual Wielded by WearKitten Space Marines with Jet PacksKatanas are weak. Chainsaw swords FTW!Nonsense. Katanas are the strongest and best sword ever made, able to cut straight through concrete and/or a wall of force. Chainsaws are for kittens.
/bow
Shouldn't that be chainsaw-katana-chucks?
We need some Cleric heavy armor proficiency discussion here ASAP.
Huzzah! :P
|
|
Hm, you are right. Let me rephrase that:The way I see it, Paizo's core competency is fluff, not crunch. Their APs and modules are amazing, but a lot of mechanics are not, as evidenced by the fact that CMB/CMD don't really work out, most of the 3.5 fixes don't fix 3.5 and there are things like Selective Spell or the summoner.
I apologize, but I don't agree with this at all. I think Paizo does a great job at creating mechanics. CMB/CMD is a huge improvement - we use it all the time in games and everyone agrees it is a pretty elegant mechanic. In fact, I actually like Paizo for the rules/ new mechanics AS MUCH as I like them for their great plots, writing, APs etc.
I think branding them in this way just because you don't like a feat here and there or don't like a class is a bit of a big leap ...
Sorry, CN, but Pathfinder does not need a reboot merely because of this feat, I assure you. I'm playing it right now and having loads of fun.
I can assure you that I had a great load of fun with the Dragonball Z pre-Fuzion system. That doesn't mean is wasn't a crappy system that could use some serious repair work. And NO! I am not comparing Pathfinder to the system at all!
I think branding them in this way just because you don't like a feat here and there or don't like a class is a bit of a big leap ...
What if it is more than a feat here and there, or a class?
How much is enough to allow a poster to think that Paizo mechanical creation isn't as good as their story/fluff creation?
Let us know how much it has to be before honest opinions can be posted without being judged.
Wow. The nerdrage is really uncalled for. And I think we may be witnessing the reason Metamagics have historically been so lame.
Now on the Antimagic Field issue:
Antimagic Field
Range: 10 ft. ; Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.
An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.
My ruling on how to interpret this:
The ‘selected targets’ of Selective Antimagic Field could include spells, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, some magic items and other miscellaneous magical effects and creatures (see full spell text, pg.242 PF CRB) currently in effect, or present in the case of creatures, and within range when the Selective Antimagic Field is cast. The ‘selected targets’ would be unaffected by the AMF, but any other spell or magical effect within the AMF would be suppressed.
It does require some case-by-case adjudication though. My guiding principle will be, ‘Is it a passive magical effect? If yes, it can be selected. If no, then nope.’ Now, what is ‘passive’? Basically anything that does not require an attack roll, save, successful hit or something similar.
I like the idea of a 'all targets in x radius' spell and honestly would like to see more than just one of them so that confusion would not be unique like it has been for so long.
It's only unique in that it's an "all targets" spell. There are "choose your own targets in a ___ radius" spells; for example, horrid wilting ("Targets living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft apart", ie, "Any number of living creatures in a 30' burst", except that it can go around corners and such).
Whew boy! I got about 2 pages into this thread before I finally had enough of my brain hurting. lol
As for AMF I just stick to what it says in the wording. Specifically:
Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.
Now without selective casting, your spells and equipment don't work. If your excluded from that effect, your equipment works because it is part of you, you are wearing it. If you weren't wearing it and it was just a pile on the ground it wouldn't be immune because it is no longer part of you.
For spells it is the same thing, it says ANY spell does not function. Doesn't matter what kind of spell it is, whether you got LOS, LOE, or whatever.
However, spells can be targets, and the feat lets you pick targets, not limited to just creatures. So if you did have an invisibility sphere on already and then selectivity cast AMF, it seems perfectly valid to me to let someone select the spell in addition to themselves as a target that is excluded from AMF.
As for which spells you can use this on, it is pretty simple. If it doesn't say AREA then you can't use the feat on it. Example Confusion, it says Targets, not Area. Fireball says Area.
However, spells can be targets...
Can you name a specific example or two in which a spell is itself a target of something? Off of the top of my head, I can't think of any in the core rules (I'm sure they exist, I just can't remember any).