However, spells can be targets...Can you name a specific example or two in which a spell is a target? 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).
Most obvious is Dispel magic.
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell.
I can't imagine it being any clearer than that. Its a spell, I target that spell to dispel it.
However, spells can be targets...Can you name a specific example or two in which a spell is itself a target of soemthing? 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).
Dispel magic.
Except dispel magic doesn't target spells. As per its target line, it targets one spellcaster, creature, or object.
Nope, no spells. It indirectly wipes spells away from spellcasters, creatures, or objects, but it isn't directly targeting the spells themselves.
Except dispel magic doesn't target spells. As per its target line, it targets one spellcaster, creature, or object.
Nope, no spells. It indirectly wipes spells away from spellcasters, creatures, or objects, but it isn't directly targeting the spells themselves.
Incorrect.
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell.
...
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way.
Except dispel magic doesn't target spells. As per its target line, it targets one spellcaster, creature, or object.
Nope, no spells. It indirectly wipes spells away from spellcasters, creatures, or objects, but it isn't directly targeting the spells themselves.
/eyeroll
Except dispel magic doesn't target spells. As per its target line, it targets one spellcaster, creature, or object.
Nope, no spells. It indirectly wipes spells away from spellcasters, creatures, or objects, but it isn't directly targeting the spells themselves.
Incorrect.
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell.
...
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way.
Ah. It seems I didn't read far enough.
I wonder why they didn't include it in the target line if you can obviously target a spell with it.
Apparently we need to carefully read a completely unrelated spell to figure out how this feat works with Antimagic Field.
This is not a good sign.
Well if it were easy then there would be nothing to talk about! lol
But yeah, all that does is set the precedent that a spell can be a target.
|
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.
You can have fun with rifts...that doesn't make rifts a system that doesn't need a serious overhaul. Hell I know people who have fun with the F word system...fun isn't a measure of good game design. This feat is VERY much not good game design. And when you have too many such bad game designs, you need a reboot. It's no longer convient to line item veto or alter rules when you have to line item veto or change ruling when you need to do so for 500 rules.
I think what bugs me most is that it COULD have been great. I mean if they just modeled it after selective channeling but made it squares instead of creatures. Or as has been suggested, only for instantaneous effects, it would be fine. It's just not worded particularly well, heck it's downright poor.
Real shame. Not the end of the world, and until I read the rest ofthe APG (hopefully later today) I'll assume this is the bad apple in the bushel, but still a shame.
If you do a 350 page book, something like this will slip.
Still, I would prefer for rule design to be left in hands of folks who actually can anticipate how the rules interact with the metagame.
Yeah. I mean it's not like there aren't people out there who are dedicated to perverting the rules. Not to speak for others, but I know I'd happily rack my brain trying to do just that, without compensation, because I care about the game. I was so amazed when they had the open beta for PFRPG, maybe they need to have a closed beta for closed content and throw it out for select people to play with.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
In other words: Jason Nelson, mate, stick to adventure writing - that's where you shine. Between this feat and the Stalwart Defender, I'm kind of sadpanda here.
An amusing comment, since I wrote neither of those. :)
Races chapter (except for a few bits that were prewritten or altered later)
Barbarian (except for a few bits that were prewritten), bard, druid, fighter, sorcerer class sections
Battle herald, holy vindicator, nature warden, rage prophet PrCs
A bunch of spells and feats, but I'd have to go back and look to see exactly which ones were in the final book; I'd guess somewhere around 20% of each chapter.
|
In other words: Jason Nelson, mate, stick to adventure writing - that's where you shine. Between this feat and the Stalwart Defender, I'm kind of sadpanda here.An amusing comment, since I wrote neither of those. :)
** spoiler omitted **
Ooo! Thanks for playing contestant, we have some lovely parting gifts for you! :)
|
In other words: Jason Nelson, mate, stick to adventure writing - that's where you shine. Between this feat and the Stalwart Defender, I'm kind of sadpanda here.An amusing comment, since I wrote neither of those. :)
** spoiler omitted **
Apologies then, I assumed that since you were the most vocal designer in this thread (and the SW thread), you were the one who wrote them (defending your offspring and suchlike). So, the rules design comment drops and the adventure design praise remains !
But you could have named the Fighter archetypes more imaginetively ! ;)
Real shame. Not the end of the world, and until I read the rest ofthe APG (hopefully later today) I'll assume this is the bad apple in the bushel, but still a shame.I may need to make a general APG rage thread.
I just read the Cavalier and I think I need a drink.
Oh? I kinda dig cavalier in the playtest, and its really not my kind of characters so that's saying a lot. What changed in final that you dislike?
Oh? I kinda dig cavalier in the playtest, and its really not my kind of characters so that's saying a lot. What changed in final that you dislike?It's not quite as bad as I thought, because I misread.
That said, it's still the secular paladin. It's a dude on a horse with a smite ability, who gets special abilities from his knightly order (which get taken away if he violates the code of conduct).
Part of me wants to take a night I have off and get really hammered and post my stream of consciousness thoughts on APG. Every time I've opened it so far, it's either made me really angry or really sad.
Well, don't exaggerate this. I found in it several thing that made me "O_o" (in another thread, I recently raised a point about some combat maneuver druid spells), but there are several good ones, too.
I nevertheless recognize the points you raised as valid, 100%. Actually, CoM was the first thing that came in my mind, too, seeing the feat.
Moreover, the Cavalier thing in more a matter of taste: yeah, there are analogies with the paladin and could feel redundant too, but, as an example, I find it very useful because forsome campaign a knightly, martial class (w/o divine spells and so on) is very useful. I want to see the teamwork feats too.
I am far more concerned, than of things that are more matter of taste (debatable), for ACTUAL head-scratching mechanics that I find more and more in the book (like the feat that made you start the thread).
|
|
mmm read the feat... re-read it... came back to check out this thread... re-read the feat yet again...
check this thread out yet again...
wow...
can we say OVER REACTING?
nothing to see here... move along.
Just curious where was the outrage when Selective Channeling was introduced? Same thing, just applied to spells now. No big deal.
If a GM is incapable of dealing with selective use of spells by PCs or incapable of interpreting the interaction with certain spells... maybe that GM should focus more on World of Warcraft then...
Won't waste any more of my time on this topic. Complete waste of time.
|
|
Well, don't exaggerate this. I found in it several thing that made me "O_o" (in another thread, I recently raised a point about some combat maneuver druid spells), but there are several good ones, too.I'm not exaggerating. Every time I open this book up I quickly find something that makes me want to close it again.
Or drink heavily.
Then don't use it in your game...
Nothing seems especially fantastic to me... nor anything exceptionally disappointing. It's another book.
[Sarcasm] Well, wait, disappointing to me... MORE base classes, MORE feats, MORE spells, MORE equipment... MORE options... sheesh, what was Paizo thing giving us new ideas and boundaries to explore! [/Sarcasm]
I'm PRETTY sure (though not 100%) that the sun will still come up tomorrow... never know though... I haven't finished reading yet so maybe there is a feat to stop the sun from rising...
seriously... drink heavily? It's a GAME...
:)
|
|
stuffI thought you were done with the thread?
While I'm here, Denounce targets a creature in the rules text, but has "Area: 30-ft-radius burst" and no "Target:" line.
I was until your smart ass stupid reply :)
still waiting for something useful from this thread though.
hey quick question... since you are so quick and good on the criticism on this stuff... how is your own publishing company coming along? How's your monthly publishing schedule coming along?
|
|
hey quick question... since you are so quick and good on the criticism on this stuff... how is your own publishing company coming along? How's your monthly publishing schedule coming along?Let's play choose your own adventure.
To read an analogous story, turn to page 2.
To see your own bad argument turned against you, turn to page 3.
To see a straightforward dismissal, turn to page 4. -=-=-
Page 2
Someone overheard me complaining to Old Man Izo about the rotten fruit, and shouted at me, "Hey, how's your orchard coming along, huh, buddy?"
I shouted back, "If I had the time and the inclination to grow my own fruit, why would I be buying fruit from Pa Izo?"
-=-=-
Page 3
Quick question, how is your complaint thread coming along? What are you doing here criticizing me if you aren't doing it better?
-=-=-
Page 4
You're obviously only here to pick a fight with me, not comment on the rules. I've really only been responding to you insofar as it amuses me to belittle a troll. So either make some salient comment about the content in the APG or my criticism of the same, or get lost. I'm perfectly within my rights to complain about deficiencies in a purchased product on a forum which (among other things) was set up for customers to discuss Paizo's products.
If these deficiencies continue to be common, then yes, I will stop using and purchasing Paizo's products. That's implicit and obvious. Presumably, Paizo likes my money, and thus tolerates my input or else their moderators would deal with things appropriately.
I've contributed a number of issues that presumably will be FAQed, and already gotten at least one clarification of unclear rules text. What have you contributed to the thread?
see just like the original topic nothing useful here at all.
Wow you wasted a LOT of time on that...
does it really piss you off THAT much that someone disagrees with you? Really sad... therapy is a good thing :)
Please, guys.
|
Please, guys.
I think it would help to realise that almost everyone who works for Paizo is at Gencon right now and any problems will not be addressed by staff for a while.
Also, some people will have realised that they can be a bit nastier without staff being present to remind them to be nice to each other.
It's sad that people have to be reminded to be nice to each other.
|
|
yeah I know.
shame on me for not sharing MIB's opinion that this one feat rocks the very foundation of the world that we know it...
and for the record I am playing nice. :)
But I will make this my last post on here. This topic is still not worth any more of my time. I'll let those who want to get all red in the faced, drunk in fury and wanting to scream and shout to the heavens how life is no longer worth living get on with things...
I'll look elsewhere for something interesting and worth some attention.
yeah I know.
shame on me for not sharing MIB's opinion that this one feat rocks the very foundation of the world that we know it...
even if the quality of the book is overall very good, there are "O_o" things. This one, I suppose, particularly shaked MiB (MiB, correct me if I'm wrong), because it's almost identical to an old class features infamous and well known to be a real game-breaker.
And compare Selective Channeling with a feat that allows you to cast spells while immune to magic it's, at least, a bit unfair.
|
|
Since this post is about "Selective Spell", let's talk about it and avoid ranting about the rest.
1. Is the wording not clear enough? Personally, I don’t find it confusing and it’s rather explicit. Where is the part that leads to misinterpretation? Are we sure it comes from the feat and not from other rules?
2. Is it broken and un-applicable? I don’t find it “broken” because, since the wording is clear to me, it sounds obvious how to handle it. You extract people from an area spell effect. The un-applicable effects come from the spells on which you apply it, not from the feat functioning itself.
Let’s have a quick look on spells that have been shown as un-applicable or broken, and forget a little bit about applying word-specific rules to justify odd effects:
Anti-magic field (AMF): the description talks numerous time about a “suppressing” and “wink out” effect, something that doesn’t destroy or dispel magic, but simply phase it out IN the area. My interpretation is quite simple, if you don’t benefit from AMF, you can be affected by anything AMF normally “suppresses”. That doesn’t seem broken to me and doesn’t make the feat broken.
Confusion: you may simply remove targets from the area that would normally apply on all creatures, friendly or not. This looks similar to the functioning of channel energy, and looks like the intended use of the feat.
Control Weather: You manipulate the weather in an area by controlling direction and wind intensity. You don't target creatures, you don't alter creatures with magic, you don't create a magic weather, the weather effects are not even magical. The tornado, hurricane or whatever are only consequences of the spell, not spell effects.
Honestly, I could go over on the other spells but since these were listed as non-sense and highly game-disruptive, it seems enough to me.
I just wanted to point out that interpretation plays a major role in rule application, and that being short-sighted about wording usually leads to bad game rules interpretation....
what he said! :)
is it unfair at times? Maybe so, but so what? I mean that seriously, not to diminish concerns. Is it unfair for 1st level PCs to beat the crap out of lowly goblins? Sure it is, but it's fun anyway. Is it unfair for a wizard to be able to cast while in an AMF of his creation? Sure it is, until he gets half a dozen arrows in his back...
I see all of this as creative opportunities. Rather than just a slug fest here is a problem and now some creative solutions are needed. Besides, sometimes it is just plain cool to be a PC and be able to do something and completely screw the bad guy's plans. Remember the idea is for the PCs to WIN :) Not a GM vs players thing at all.
When I play, I'm not looking for fairness or balance. I want fun and opportunities to be creative.
The feat as written to me seems fine. Some thinking outside the box and things can get even more interesting in fact. This is an opportunity to ramp up fun to 11 :)
|
|
see I don't find that a problem.
being too vague means that a GM can actually have some value.
I don't want every possible idea in a game to be spelled out for me. To me, I'd rather just play World of Warcraft then.
So what if a game in Phoenix interprets the rule differently than a game in Toronto? There is nothing wrong with that at all. Heck so what if a game in Akron interprets it differently than the game on the next block?
Think about all of the interconnectivity in the game, how X affects Y but differently when Z, A ,B, and D are applied, and then how E completely negates all of those options in the F circumstance. To take things to an absurd degree there lol
and the other thing that I see is that each and every one of these interpretations is right. The world is not black and white, there is no right and wrong, there is no one way or the high way. Every interpretation is correct.
If these interpretations differ from yours or mine, so what?
|
|
Being able to lay down a custom-sized hurricane that doesn't affect you or your allies is a hugely powerful gamewrecker. Few things can actually do anything useful in a hurricane or tornado.
See I don't don't find that a gamewrecker. A player does that and I reward his creative use of his resources. The spell eventually ends, the spell does not cover such a large area that there is no possible way for me as a GM to respond.
BTW in my games MY ruling over rules SKR and Jacobs and anyone else who wrote the book. When I am a player the other GM's ruling over rules MY opinion, and any "official" ruling SKR or Jacobs or anyone else states. Once it is in print, they can "rule" all they want, but that is just their opinions.
For example, I would rule Lesser Confusion is NOT an area spell, and Confusion IS an area spell. I don't care what SKR or anyone else at Paizo has to say on this matter. At this point it is their opinion only. Until the rulebook is completely rewritten to state otherwise, anything they say is just opinion.
I don't need Area Affect to be defined, just like I don't need Dead to be defined in the game. Someone on the boards once actually pointed out that Dead is not defined in the game, so damage and conditions can still be applied long after character "death." I don't need character "death" to be defined for me either. :) Trust me had enough die I don't even want to go there! lol
|
|
My interpretation is quite simple, if you don’t benefit from AMF, you can be affected by anything AMF normally “suppresses”.Oh no doubt, but if AMF blocks line of effect that doesn't matter much. Also regardless of that it allows you to walk up to someone, with all your magical bonuses ... while he is reverted to having nothing but mundane gear (and a complete lack of magic abilities).
The effects of the original AMF are balanced on the fact that you suffer the same huge debuff ... taking that away for a +1 spell level isn't remotely balanced.
You the wizard walk up to my barbarian and I rage... NOT a good idea... oh heck and then the rogue has you flanked now and gets that precision damage for how many extra d6s? Those few points of Mage Armor aren't really going to help that much...
You cast the AMF on me, the BBEG. Suddenly I find I am SCREWED. Time to let the mooks die while I retreat out the secret door, and out of the AMF area of effect. Mmmmm not a bad idea. Let me grab that Potion of Cure Serious I stored back in that other room to recover from all of those wounds your fighter gave me... and hey... WAIT! I have that Summon Monster IX on that scroll... perfect time to use that! That wizard bought me some time to guarantee the demise of that pesky adventuring party!
None of this is a problem yet. These are all opportunities to be creative and make the game more exciting...
I agree with MiB. I'm less negative in my overall view of the book, but there are, IMO, sevral things overlooked.
And MiB points remain valid. As I stated in another thread, why the paladin errata if you can fix it by yourself?
One thing is a corner case that a DM adjudicates, one thing is an ambiguity that can lead to problematic situations.
I prefer the emphasis the designer have about diverse and inspiring rules, but sometimes things need to be spelled better or reworked to increase the game experience, and make them a feature instead of a thing that need an homerule or a ban.
Moreover, since errata DO EXIST, discuss about the rules politely can improve the overall quality of the game (again, already very high) and subsequently improve its success.
|
|
You can turn up your nose and say, "Well, superior roleplayers such as my group don't ever have such disagreements," and that's nice for you, but not all of us benefit from perfect telepathy the way you do. These interpretation disjoints lead to a disruption of the game while we sort out the disjoint, hurt feelings, and sometimes actual arguments.
Nonetheless, I expect to see more posts that boil down to, "Well, why don't you waste your time editing and rewriting the books you just bought?"
My group disagrees on rules all the time. However, we all know that the GM has final say. He rules and that ends it. If another person GMs it differently that is fine.
Nope not going to say "Well, why don't you waste your time editing and rewriting the books you just bought?" at all... What I AM going to say is show me ONE rule book of ANY game system at ANY time that has not had poorly worded rules and differing interpretations...
I still am not following the concern here. :)
The Core book is FULL of vague feats and spells and poorly worded rules... so why are you even playing Pathfinder at all?
I think the other thing I want to say is to remember, the game is not written for YOU any more than it is written for me. Demanding that it be written to your standards and expectations and desires is completely unrealistic.
|
|
I agree with MiB. I'm less negative in my overall view of the book, but there are, IMO, sevral things overlooked.
And MiB points remain valid. As I stated in another thread, why the paladin errata if you can fix it by yourself?
One thing is a corner case that a DM adjudicates, one thing is an ambiguity that can lead to problematic situations.
Moreover, since errata DO EXIST, discuss about the rules politely can improve the overall quality of the game (again, already very high) and subsequently improve its success.
Sure I agree... to some degree
But a topic that starts off IT'S BROKEN AND DOESN'T MEET MY OPINION OF THINGS AND MUST BOW DOWN TO MY DEMANDS is hardly a polite call to discussion :)