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.
But 'the DM can fix it' is not a valid response to problems or ambiguities in the rules.
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.
He is trying to improve the situation by pointing out specific problems. Which can then be fixed by Paizo in an errata or FAQ. This is a good thing.
|
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.
But 'the DM can fix it' is not a valid response to problems or ambiguities in the rules.
He is trying to improve the situation by pointing out specific problems. Which can then be fixed by Paizo in an errata or FAQ. This is a good thing.
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.
FIRST, Mal I want to say this is NOT directed to YOU or any one person specifically (not even MIB) but towards the thread...
lol
The DM CAN fix it is the ONLY valid response.
Paizo can release all the FAQs they want, doesn't make an iota of difference. It is still their opinion vs the GM at the table. The GM still wins.
And after reading page after page and topic after topic I do not think that is his goal at all, I'm sorry to say.
I'm sorry to say, also, I still do not see any problem or ambiguity in the rule. It says what it says as clearly as can be. Read it and apply it as the situation needs. How complicated is that?
And just curious, how many have already had their games completely wrecked by this feat? How many games have come crashing down because of this feat? How many friendships have been terminated because of this feat?
So are we talking a lot of needless hand wringing for things that have not yet happened, but just MIGHT someday happen in some game some where?
I AM listening to what is being said... really I am. But so far I hear a lot of what IF, and this COULD happen, and a lot of fear mongering.
What I am NOT hearing is how one can handle certain circumstances when they come up... or rather when I do hear them they are immediately dismissed as "interpretations" and not a valued option because it does not fit that person's opinion exactly.
Let me put it bluntly.
NO game has rules that are not subjective. EXPECTING a game to match YOUR interpretation perfectly is completely unrealistic. If you want to play a game where the GM does NOT have to make some decision or interpretation then I think World of Warcraft is a better game for you than ANY table top roleplaying game.
IF you want an honest discussion about the feat and how it can be applied then get off your high horse when people offer suggestions. IF you want an honest discussion then offer some solution rather than just complaining.
To be even more blunt, I hear a lot of cry baby bawling about things that have not occurred yet, and fishing for sympathy. When solutions and options and other opinions are presented they are immediately dismissed as nonsense so the whine fest can continue.
I have offered a couple of interpretations and solutions and encouraged creative gaming. I have seen others apply creative ideas to the situation. I have seen suggestions that make me hope for the time this feat is used in game because it is going to be so freaking cool.
Yet the whine fest continues. "It's not the way I want it so it is broken!"
The feat is not broken. You just don't like it.
Get over it.
So, errata is always useless, because DM has the last word?
See, i sometimes talk with people in teh internet saying that this or that game is broken and unplayable becaus this or that. i generally disagree because most of their argumentation rely on lack of common sense by DM and player part.
Nevetheless, thing can alwasy be done better. if one things could work better, or more as intended, with a little modification, why don't point it out?
The DM CAN fix it is the ONLY valid response.
Paizo can release all the FAQs they want, doesn't make an iota of difference. It is still their opinion vs the GM at the table. The GM still wins.
False, and provably so:
Pathfinder Society.
Valid… Y'all keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The DM CAN fix it is the ONLY valid response.
Paizo can release all the FAQs they want, doesn't make an iota of difference. It is still their opinion vs the GM at the table. The GM still wins.
That's true for each individual game. This has no bearing on problems in the rules. The rules should be clear, consistent and balanced. That this goal cannot be achieved in practice does not mean we shouldn't try.
And after reading page after page and topic after topic I do not think that is his goal at all, I'm sorry to say.
As long as he points out actual rule problems, his intention is none of our business. It might be for the lulz, it might be because he's concerned...so what? It helps to make the game better so we should welcome his observations.
Edit: Fixed typo.
As long as he points out actual rule problems, his intention is none of our business a. It might be for the lulz, it might be because he's concerned...so what? It helps to make the game better so we should welcome his observations.
And after reading page after page and topic after topic I do not think that is his goal at all, I'm sorry to say.
That is a common theme around these forums. Too many people being "thought police." If you watch carefully, you will see multiple examples of "unknown poster A" posting almost the same thing as "known Paizonian B", and getting jumped for it because it is believed the intention was not pure. Which can be reversed as saying it is because "known Paizonian B" intentions are believed to be pure.
|
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.
Sorry, I should have been clear that I was playing the game without any Line Item vetos or house-rules at all, RAW, and having loads of fun.
So, can you more clearly define where we jumped from "Selective Spell, Stealth, and a few other things are awkwardly worded" to "500 rules need to be line item vetoed and the entire game needs a reboot"? Because, there's a big jump there, and I just want to understand how you reached your conclusion. Or was that exaggeration, intended to make a point?
However, the number of creatures excludable is locked in with the rod at ‘up to four’ – though granted that that should cover a lot of situations for avoiding ‘friendly fire’ with a standard four man adventuring party, unless the party has a lot of animal companions/eidolons/mounts around…
And note that it only lets you exclude creatures. That definitely clarifies the intent of the feat.
EDIT: Not that it's not still wonky even with only affecting creatures, nor that it's a good thing to have to look up the metamagic rod to figure out how the feat is supposed to work...
|
There does seem to be points worth clarifying across a few spells.
Antimagic Field is very specific in describing some interactions but silent on others. Casting Spell within an anti-magic area that have effects outside of that area or a LoS, Ray etc passing through an AMF aren't dealt with, leaving either a DMs 'yeah' or 'nay ' equally as valid. Looking around, this has been argued about long before Pathfinder got involved. Having said that, Pathfinder is logically the keeper of 3.X lore now that the Wizards have moved on so a clarification would be helpful.
As for Selective Spell, I'd agree there are a bunch of AREA type spells when combined with this feat seems pretty powerful.
I'm not so worried about Black Tentacles. Powerful but not game breaking IMHO.
The Control 'X' [Transmutation] type spells do seem to be a whole lot more nonsensical however. Are these omitted from the Feat as the magical effect is changing the nature of the subject of the spell (X), not affecting those in the area directly? I'd suggest that an ally Water Elemental could be excluded from the effects of a Control Water spell but other allies would still drown in the controlled water.
I think we now agree that the Wall Of X spells have an EFFECT not an AREA so are excluded from the Feat.
I note that Antimagic Field [Abjuration] and Silence [Illusion] are emanations centred on something ('you' in the case of AMF). I think you could argue that if you select yourself for casting a Selective Antimagic Field spell, the spell effect itself would cease. This doesn't stop you from excluding allies of course. On the face of it, this doesn't seem very powerful.
Possible 'fixes' if it is deemed that this Feat is overpowering are:
* Only instantaneous Area spells can be cast with this Feat (A neat conclusion stated earlier, however this under-powers the Feat IMHO)
* The Feat only works on Conjurations and/or Evocations that have an Area effect
* Emanations don't count as included Area effect spells for the purposes of this Feat
|
|
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.Sorry, I should have been clear that I was playing the game without any Line Item vetos or house-rules at all, RAW, and having loads of fun.
So, can you more clearly define where we jumped from "Selective Spell, Stealth, and a few other things are awkwardly worded" to "500 rules need to be line item vetoed and the entire game needs a reboot"? Because, there's a big jump there, and I just want to understand how you reached your conclusion. Or was that exaggeration, intended to make a point?
Oh really...and which RAW are you playing by? What happens to ignored fog spells in your RAW again? Can you apply this feat to fog spells? How about AMF? I bet I could poke a million holes in your interpreation of RAW. There are well written rules that have clear RAW, and then we have PoS like this feat where all your gonna get is interpretation until a FAQ or errata pops up. 3.x had quite a few of these...and I had hoped that the paizo staff would have learned from that. But hey one mistake isn't the end...course I see quite a few more then one in my brief overlook of the AGP, so it doesn't look promising unless they shape up for the next splat book.
Antimagic Field is very specific in describing some interactions but silent on others. Casting Spell within an anti-magic area that have effects outside of that area or a LoS, Ray etc passing through an AMF aren't dealt with, leaving either a DMs 'yeah' or 'nay ' equally as valid. Looking around, this has been argued about long before Pathfinder got involved. Having said that, Pathfinder is logically the keeper of 3.X lore now that the Wizards have moved on so a clarification would be helpful.
Regarding AMF, I'd like to give my 2 cents.
People argue if a spell could 'pass through' an AMF and affect something on the other side of it - if such a case were true, however, an iconic D&D creature would have been seriously weakened.
The Beholder.
I know, I know, we are not speaking of 3.x anymore, Beholders are not included in Pathfinder (being TM of Hasbro/WotC), and so on. However, Beholders had an AM ray on their front eye. And they could not be affected by magic when the eye was pointing in a specific direction.
Now, if AMF worked like a Globe of Invulnerability (which specifically says that a spell can pass through the Globe, merely not affecting those inside it), a Beholder could not render a caster useless, ever. Because any spell targetting the Beholder (let's say a Lightning Bolt, for ease of use) would have 'winked out' inside the cone, and started to work again when passing through it... right on the face of the Beholder itself (more exactly, on the cornea of his big bad eye).
Moreover, without mentioning a 3.x legacy and speaking of PF Core only, how can a caster be rendered useless inside an AMF if any of his spells could pass through the Anti Magic area ? A Wizard affected by AMF would have all his buff spells useless, but if he could cast through the area, this would be a minor nuisance - he could cast Hold Monsters, Fireball, Wall of Force, Meteor Swarm... any one of these spells would still work (either they would affect directly a target out of the AMF area, like Hold Monster, or they would pass through it, like Fireball). It would be a HUGE boost for a Wizard, because he could cast spells to another target and this target could not affect him with any Supernatural/Spell-like/Spell ability.
Obviously (for me) this is not the intended idea of Pathfinder AMF. So (again, for me), it stops magic from functioning if magic enters the Anti Magic area and... well, it fizzles it (like something called 'Anti Magic' should work, IMHO, not being simply a 'Magic Slippery'). And it also blocks line of effect, otherwise it would allow a Wizard to cast a Target spell (again, like Hold Monster) even while inside the Anti Magic area.
Really, if AMF would have worked in this way from the beginning, Selective AMF would actually render it WEAKER for a caster - since if he excludes himself, he would now be the target of such spells (being surrounded in a thin bubble of 'no Anti Magic area'). He could have cast spells inside a 'regular' AMF before - with a Selective AMF he could now be damaged by spells as well.
But I know that many, many people would not agree on this...
People argue if a spell could 'pass through' an AMF and affect something on the other side of it - if such a case were true, however, an iconic D&D creature would have been seriously weakened.
The Beholder.
I know, I know, we are not speaking of 3.x anymore, Beholders are not included in Pathfinder (being TM of Hasbro/WotC), and so on. However, Beholders had an AM ray on their front eye. And they could not be affected by magic when the eye was pointing in a specific direction.
Except that if you're standing in the AMF, you can't cast spells regardless. And the beholder's eye shot the cone out quite a ways. The ideas was that you'd be in the cone, so whether or not spells can go "through" the AMF, as it were, you'd be unable to cast them.
Except that if you're standing in the AMF, you can't cast spells regardless. And the beholder's eye shot the cone out quite a ways. The ideas was that you'd be in the cone, so whether or not spells can go "through" the AMF, as it were, you'd be unable to cast them.
A strict reading of the RAW does not say this. The AMF does not say that you cannot cast spells at all, merely that "it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines."
(and yes, I agree that it IS silly)
A rules-lawyer player could simply say 'Hey, if I cast Enlarge Person on myself it would not work, because I'm in the AMF (which 'prevents' the functioning of spells within its confines)... let's cast it on my 'Fellow Friend Fred the Fighter (tm)' which stands over there...'
And, at my table, I would smack him on the head.
And again, a caster could have been simply outside of the AM cone of the Beholder (how long was, 30 ft. ? 60 ft. ? I don't remember) and bombard it with Lighning Bolts from the far end of the corridor.
Of course I believe that most (if not all) GMs (or rather, DMs :) ) would have not allowed this, back then...
Again, for me this is not a problem of the Selective Spell metamagic feat in itself (although I admit that it could have been written in a clearer way); it's a problem of the RAW on the AntiMagic Field spell (which I think that works perfectly as RAI, but it could lead to abuse 'as is' from a rules-lawyer perspective...)
Just my 2c.
|
|
A few problems here.First it's not that you are taken out of the area of effect (like the 3.x mastery of shaping) which could try to argue that if the point of emanation is removed from the area then it cannot hold.
Rather in the case of selective spell there are people that are immune to the effects of the spell. An emanation spell that did fire damage for example would not cease if the caster happened to be a fire giant or other creature immune to fire.
Regardless even if the caster of the AMF has to be effected it is still overpowered to being broken. You're still assuming that this takes someone out of the fight which it doesn't. There are many ways around that.
The easiest would be a selective silence on the party fighter...
-James
Yes, I see your logic of the immunity and emanation. And on further thought, Selective AMF is pretty powerful. Gaming breaking? Not sure.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "still assuming that this takes someone out of the fight". Can you explain?
On your last point - so the party caster selects her spell casting allies to be immune to her Selective Silence spell and casts it on the party fighter who gets in the face of their spell casting enemy? Sounds like a clever plan with the word 'spell' repeated too often in the sentence ;-) Actually, it's a tactic our party used a lot against enemy spell casters without the benefit of the Selective Spell feat. The only benefit from the feat in this scenario is that you don't have to be as tactically aware in your battlefield movements.
|
|
Oh really...and which RAW are you playing by? What happens to ignored fog spells in your RAW again? Can you apply this feat to fog spells? How about AMF? I bet I could poke a million holes in your interpreation of RAW. There are well written rules that have clear RAW, and then we have PoS like this feat where all your gonna get is interpretation until a FAQ or errata pops up. 3.x had quite a few of these...and I had hoped that the paizo staff would have learned from that. But hey one mistake isn't the end...course I see quite a few more then one in my brief overlook of the AGP, so it doesn't look promising unless they shape up for the next splat book.
OK, here's where I take the time to point out obvious facts which shouldn't need to be pointed out to anyone.
Nobody cast a Selective-spelled Obscuring Mist or Fog Cloud in my game, because not every character in every game is going to take this feat. There is no charcter in my party with this feat, which is going to be the case for an absolute minimum of 75% of all parties worldwide (and I think that's being generous). The feat is aimed at making blaster wizards/sorcerors a little bit better, but compared to the alternatives, blaster casters still stink even with this feat in play, so it's not going to see a lot of play.
This is one of those problems that's a problem in theory, but not so much in practice. I don't deny that the occasional Munchkin will attempt to apply this Feat to an AMF and argue that the results of such an action should make him invincible (probably after reading this thread, thanks aMiB), but those instances are going to be few and far between.
Tell me the truth: Did you read this feat and immediately think "OMGZ SELECTIVE AMF BREAKS TEH GAME!!1!!!", or did you think "Oh, look, a way to not hit my party with the Fireball I'm casting"? I'm willing to bet that aMiB's critical eye is probably one of the only ones that would have caught this potential problem without it coming up in actual play. Unless of course you saw this thread before reading the Feat, which obviously casts the Feat in a really bad light and causes you to presuppose a mountain where there is in fact a molehill.
In summary, the fact that a problem can be conceived of in the game mechanics does not mean that it will arise with any degree of frequency whatsoever in actual play. Calling for a complete rehaul of the rules because of one metamagic Feat is alarmist and premature. If, as you state, you have other examples of gamebreaking things that you came up with on your very own, please feel free to bring them up, so that the community can discuss and be aware of them. Additional alarmism on the topic of Selective Spell is nothing but noise, quite frankly.
After reading this thread, I still don't see a problem with this feat.
Antimagic field: great you get to keep your buffs and enemies lose them. My interpretation is spells wink out when they enter the field, so your spells are still suppressed if they leave you, and your line of effect is still blocked to non-touch. No real problem here. Its powerful, but so are most 7th level spells.
Fogs: you are immune to the fog, but light isn't. Obscuring mist still blocks line of sight. You will be immune to damage from things like cloud kill though.
Black Tentacles: still not as powerful as wall of thorns.
Entangle: not a bad lvl 2 spell.
Web: does not stick to you
Wall of Fire: will not burn you
Wall of force: you can walk through
Wall of Stone: instanteous durration, so it doesn't matter. The wall is there, and it affects you.
Control water: The spell doesn't affect your friends to make them drown. The spell affects the water. Unless your friends are made of water, this ability will have no affect.
I don't really see any of these powers as particularly overpowered, and I don't see why this is an issue. I think it is a little undercosted at +1 spell level, but thats about it.
Basicly, anything that affects the terrain your friends still have to deal with.
I would still rule that spells like Hold Person could not be cast from within an AMF even if the caster was a selected target of the Selective AMF.
True, Hold Person and the like do not ‘shoot’ from the caster, like say a ray does, but I’d rule the caster is still manifesting the magic though some type of magical link between him/her and the spell effect, a link that could not be established through an AMF. I get this idea from the fact that such spells have a range. If the caster and the spell effect are not linked in some way it does not make much sense that there would be a distance from the caster past which a spell won’t work.
After reading this thread, I still don't see a problem with this feat.
snip - Caineach's Interpretation of Selective Spell
The problem is exactly that there so are many possible interpretations...the feat should be clear and concise, not open and messy.
|
|
The problem is exactly that there so are many possible interpretations...the feat should be clear and concise, not open and messy.
You're absolutely right, the lack of clarity is the problem, not the "brokenness".
Personally, I'd have limited it to instantaneous Area spells that deal direct damage. I think that pretty well defines Fireball, Cone Of Cold, etc., which is obviously the type of spell that the feat is aimed toward.
The problem is exactly that there so are many possible interpretations...the feat should be clear and concise, not open and messy.You're absolutely right, the lack of clarity is the problem, not the "brokenness".
Personally, I'd have limited it to instantaneous Area spells that deal direct damage. I think that pretty well defines Fireball, Cone Of Cold, etc., which is obviously the type of spell that the feat is aimed toward.
I disagree. I think the other spells are just as valid, just as useful, and often more interesting to allow to use this feat. I would be very disappointed to not let this be used on them.
I disagree. I think the other spells are just as valid, just as useful, and often more interesting to allow to use this feat. I would be very disappointed to not let this be used on them.
You're absolutely right, the lack of clarity is the problem, not the "brokenness".Personally, I'd have limited it to instantaneous Area spells that deal direct damage. I think that pretty well defines Fireball, Cone Of Cold, etc., which is obviously the type of spell that the feat is aimed toward.
Once you allow non-instantaneous spells, we're back in 'broken' territory.
Once you allow non-instantaneous spells, we're back in 'broken' territory.I disagree. I think the other spells are just as valid, just as useful, and often more interesting to allow to use this feat. I would be very disappointed to not let this be used on them.
You're absolutely right, the lack of clarity is the problem, not the "brokenness".Personally, I'd have limited it to instantaneous Area spells that deal direct damage. I think that pretty well defines Fireball, Cone Of Cold, etc., which is obviously the type of spell that the feat is aimed toward.
And I disagree. I have not yet seen any part of it that is broken.
Depends upon the spell.
Yes, exactly. I didn't say 'broken for all spells', but there are more than a few spells which are borderline, and some are outright broken with this feat. Also, the ambiguity of the feat is much larger when non-instantaneous spells are allowed.
Once you allow non-instantaneous spells, we're back in 'broken' territory.Depends upon the spell.
For silence, yes far more powerful than a 3rd level spell should be.
For AMF, heck yes, far more powerful than a 9th level spell should be let alone a 7th.
For repulsion, seems strong, but not over the top.
For anti-life shell, very strong but probably just on the edge.
-James
Honestly, none of those spells seem too strong at all. Silence, like AMF, does not affect the person. It affects the sound they create, and so this basicly does nothing. Its not a spell that prevents someone from hearing. Its a spell that prevents the sonic waves from moving. You can make someone immune. It doesn't mean their sound is immune. Exactly the same as AMF with spells.
Honestly, none of those spells seem too strong at all. Silence, like AMF, does not affect the person. It affects the sound they create, and so this basicly does nothing. Its not a spell that prevents someone from hearing. Its a spell that prevents the sonic waves from moving. You can make someone immune. It doesn't mean their sound is immune. Exactly the same as AMF with spells.I would say wrong on both counts.
A PC in a silence area cannot cast. A PC immune to the silence can cast.
A party of PCs traveling in a selective silence is far too strong for a 3rd level spell.
And selective AMF is just beyond broken for any level of spell.
-James
And we will just have to agree to disagree here, since I do not find those abilities broken at those levels.
Honestly, none of those spells seem too strong at all.A party of PCs traveling in a selective silence is far too strong for a 3rd level spell.
And selective AMF is just beyond broken for any level of spell.
+1
Honestly, none of those spells seem too strong at all. Silence, like AMF, does not affect the person. It affects the sound they create, and so this basicly does nothing. Its not a spell that prevents someone from hearing. Its a spell that prevents the sonic waves from moving. You can make someone immune. It doesn't mean their sound is immune. Exactly the same as AMF with spells.I would say wrong on both counts.
A PC in a silence area cannot cast. A PC immune to the silence can cast.
A party of PCs traveling in a selective silence is far too strong for a 3rd level spell.
And selective AMF is just beyond broken for any level of spell.
-James
You guys aren't even trying to break this. Consider the implications of selective sleet storm:
40 radius, 20 ft tall cylinder.
Within this cylinder, all creatures lose all sight (Including darkvision).
They are also balancing on the icy floor at a DC 10 acrobatics check. Failing by 5 or more knocks them prone. Unlike grease, they don't get a reflex save.
And since they're actively balancing, they are denied their dexterity modifiers. Unlike grease, the spell does not include the wording that removes the flat-footed modifier when standing still.
The best part? No saving throw, No spell resistance. This happens for rounds/level.
But you have a lesser selective metamagic rod on you, so four of your party members are immune to these effects.
So at level 5/6 you can easily grant total concealment to your allies and make all enemies flat-footed and require them to make acrobatics checks if they take damage with no adverse effects for up to four members of your party. All for the price of 3,000 GP.
Granted, this is a pure RAW interperetation. (Sleet storm is an Area spell, not a target/effect, it's actually an Area.) I'd never allow this to happen in my own house games... but as of right now this is a legal pathfinder society combination and quite easy to obtain.
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 have learned to temper my responses as well, especially with the hot-headed posters...
Tell me the truth: Did you read this feat and immediately think "OMGZ SELECTIVE AMF BREAKS TEH GAME!!1!!!", or did you think "Oh, look, a way to not hit my party with the Fireball I'm casting"? I'm willing to bet that aMiB's critical eye is probably one of the only ones that would have caught this potential problem without it coming up...
I don't know about that. When it comes to finding potentially broken combos, MiB and I think a lot alike.
I thought much the same as he when I first saw the feat. Though we differ in how the combo actually works, we both thought ""OMGZ SELECTIVE AMF CAN BE COMBO'D!"
|
|
You two, you two. I'm not sure whether you're just trying to be funny, or really putting words in my mouth. I bet it's the funny thing.
That's why I said "One of the only ones who would have caught" and "Blasting Casters still stink". I'm fully aware that aMiB wouldn't be the only person worldwide to envision this combo, and I really, REALLY know that Fireball is a terrible spell. It's also, especially for the non-optimizing crowd (read: the people who would never consider using AMF with Selective Spell) a completely iconic spell that a lot of people take.
I agree that SS clearly has ramifications above and beyond what JB or any of the developers intended - at least I hope. What I don't agree with and am taking exception to is Cold Napalm saying that this totally, irrevocably renders the entire ruleset untenable, requiring a complete reboot of the game. That's just hogwash, plain and simple. I disagree very little with what anyone else is saying here.
You don't need this technicality. Blind or being attacked by someone you can't see is flatfooted.
That said, good catch. Sleet Storm is one of my favorite spells, I should have thought of that!
Actually you do, because the blinded and invisible conditions are the things that give flat-footed status, NOT total concealement.
The only thing sleet storm gives is total concealment. The enemy isn't technically blinded, nor is the creature attacking invisible.
That said, the ice is going to get you flat-footed regardless unless you have a fly speed.
|
|
You two, you two. I'm not sure whether you're just trying to be funny, or really putting words in my mouth. I bet it's the funny thing.
That's why I said "One of the only ones who would have caught" and "Blasting Casters still stink". I'm fully aware that aMiB wouldn't be the only person worldwide to envision this combo, and I really, REALLY know that Fireball is a terrible spell. It's also, especially for the non-optimizing crowd (read: the people who would never consider using AMF with Selective Spell) a completely iconic spell that a lot of people take.
I agree that SS clearly has ramifications above and beyond what JB or any of the developers intended - at least I hope. What I don't agree with and am taking exception to is Cold Napalm saying that this totally, irrevocably renders the entire ruleset untenable, requiring a complete reboot of the game. That's just hogwash, plain and simple. I disagree very little with what anyone else is saying here.
I did NOT say that. I said if there are enough of these that build up over the next few splat books, then yes you do reach a reboot phase. It happened with 3.0, 3.5 and it's gotten there with 4th ed. Wanting to see a decade between reaching that phase is not unreasonable (it took 3.0 4 years before it became inevitable and 3.5 3 years). I wasn't talking about one bad rule, I was talking about a build up of them.
edit: Also IF the developers wanted this feat to apply to blasting only, they could have made it apply to instant spells only. The way it's worded, me and my groups mind went straight for AMF, entangle, grease and BT...before exploring other game breaking options. If you think it only applies to blasting, 1) that's not even remotely close what the RAW of this feat says and 2) that's not even remotely close to what the RAW of this feat says.
|
|
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....
Look, I'm not going to argue with you beyond this post. I simply don't have the time in an average day to go back and forth with you, since I spend a lot of time doing things I actually enjoy doing. With that said, please reread what I just quoted.
It's true, the words "Pathfinder needs a reboot right now, today" are not present.
It's also true that there is virtually no way to read your statement without concluding that the author's opinion is that this feat is the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". The final sentence is a very thinly disguised leading phrase, helped along by the post ending with an ellipsis (albeit one with one too many .'s). The hanging phrase implies the following:
I was kinda hoping for PF to last a decade before needing a reboot....[but it hasn't even made it two full years and it already does].
If I've assumed the incorrect ending for the phrase, my bad. In my defense, I would just throw the crazy thought out there that if you don't want your ideas to be misunderstood, you might want to complete your sentences in the future.
At any rate, don't mind me. The sky is clearly falling, pray continue.
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.
.
If I remember correctly, Sculpt Spell in 3.5 had a similar restriction, and wording in regards to which spells it could be used on (those with AOE only I believe)
Best solution to the disputes I see is to treat the people as if they have infinite spell resistence to the spell. If it does not offer spell resistence, like many of the ones people are compalining about, then it does nothing.