|
As far as rain as a casting penalty. I'd be arguing a hard downpour, not a 6 second annoyance. Speaking from experience, I've never found a light rain distracting. I've marched in it in band, done drills in the military, and a dozen other tasks that take a form of concentration without having an issue while in a light rain. A 2 gallon, 6 second storm does not count as a downpour IMO.What people have failed to mention is that the spell is two gallons PER level. Maybe at first level that two gallons in the form of a downpour is not much by your ruling, but a 5th level character is creating 10 gallons in the form of a downpour and a 10th level character is creating 20 gallons. The spell also specifically says that a cubic foot of water is 8 gallons and weighs 60 pounds. Now if you could not use the spell to form that solid cube of water, then they would not have put that in the description. So a high level caster should be perfectly capable of making that water cube above an enemy's head and having 60+ pounds fall down onto them. That will not only break concentration, that will knock your ass to the ground.
OK, but the problem is that we don't know if the water is diffused over the 5 foot square, then the weight upon the target is going to be much different. If the water takes 6 seconds to fall, then its not all appearing at once
If it works just like the way your saying, and maybe your exactly right, if it's that good, then its a broken 0 level spell (IMHO). It becomes much stronger than "Daze".
Given that it doesn't include any information on being knocked prone, or damaging items like paper and spellbooks, or extinguishing fires. Yes I do realize that those rules exist in other areas of the RPG book, but generally there are referances to those issues in the spell discription.
This sort of question belongs in Pathfinder RPG part of the message boards. It's an interesting and cool debate, but it goes beyond PFS.
As far as Create Water goes, yes it's a zero level spell, but so is acid splash. For a simple ranged touch attack, you can force a concentration check of DC 12+. Why not grant that for Create Water? (perhaps make them roll a ranged touch attack to actually hit them with the water?)Acid Splash not only requires an attack roll, but it also does damage. If Create Water did damage or had a saving throw or specifically required an attack roll to target a creature, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As a judge, I would far rather rule that Create Water doesn't affect a spellcaster's concentration than add a ranged touch attack roll to the spell in order to allow the spell to do so.
I wasn't arguing that Create Water deals damage, I was referring to the argument that "It's a zero level spell" and thus shouldn't be used to cause (low) concentration checks. My point was simply that there are other zero level spells that can force a concentration check. Who cares which one it really is? It costs the players that same amount of resources to do it...
|
|
A couple of things:
First, we did an experiment yesterday, just to see how this works out in real life. A person reading a song was dunked in 2 gallons of water at some point in the song (random) to see if it messed them up or if they got distracted. They knew they were going to get dunked but didn't know when. Guess what! They (sometimes) messed up horribly. They usually messed up a little. Keep in mind the dunkee is very opposed to my creative use of create water, so I'm pretty sure he wasn't just being agreeable, despite his agreeance with my interpretation of the rules... (youtube video to follow?)
Second, the caster choses the size of the downpour, up to three times the necessary area. 1 gallon occupies something like 3 and a half liters, a liter is a cubic decimeter... so after some math we realize that EACH gallon occupies a space that is 1 foot by 1 foot by 1.56 inches of solid water. That's the minimum space required to create the water. The maximum space to create the water is 3 times that (per gallon)... essentially, you can fill the square at .06th of an inch per gallon... but you don't have to!
Anyways, these rules are made to imitate life as closely as we can while assuming for magic and other things we can't recreate, but it's pretty easy to see what happens when you douse someone in two gallons of water and they aren't expecting it.
Lastly, this whole affect/effect nonsense is a rather silly argument. The paragraph says affected... the definition of affect is to act on OR produce a change in (according to dictionary.com), create water obviously affects them, and it's obviously a spell... so we obviously have to use the rules provided for that situation.
I'm kind of annoyed by the repeated responses of "Well I don't like it so I wont allow it." Seriously? Why do we even have core rulebooks, then? Why do we have any rules at all? This is not your home game, folks. It's organized play. Stick to the rules or stop judging, it's an integrity of the game thing at this...
Take it easy Mammon.
I like the sound of your experiment. But honestly if we go down your path then we have to ask what else is affected when water volume goes up. Thus, your not going to get a satisfactory answer here.
Secondly, a GM is a judge. There are rules and they can be interipted. Since this issue is far from clear I would expect that this will come down on two sides of the fence.
The fact of the matter is that as written, there are many factors to address and that a matter for the RPG designers, and not anyone else.
|
So, unless Paizo comes out and ends this argument, that's where I rule.With Josh out, and with this being the PFS boards as opposed to the main rule boards, you're unlikely to see a ruling.
Why not go ask over on the Official Rules forums to see if you can get James or Sean to respond?
Josh is most likely going to say this falls into the realm of GM discretion. I suspect James and Sean will not give an official answer but more an idea of how they would rule.
The problem I see with the spell is there is no targeting in the spell, no save, no touch attack, nothing. Assuming you can accurately time and target a non-combat spell is IMO a little presumptuous. Thinking about it now I would likely give the caster a reflex save to avoid the effect. In game, unpreppared at a busy table? I'm not sure how I would call it.
I had a great time playinsaturday, and things like this wouldn't stop that. I just posted here to get an idea of what would make a dm not let it count. Unfortunately it seems to be based on preference rather than actual text (which should be reserved for home games rather than organized play) but eh, what can you do?
I don't even really think this is creativity, seems like you are trying to hack the rules with an unsuspecting GM. I'm Ok with that but don't be too surprised or upset if things don't work the way you plan. GMs don't have the entire book memorized and don't like looking up a rules to adjudicate something like this at an overfull table.
Usually a judgement call at the table is followed by poking through the rules to see if you made the right call and whether so you can make sure you get it right next time. This is how GMs learn and improve.
|
The one I dislike seeing the most is....
I am going to handle this by punishing the player!Which I see over and over in these boards....
....player did X
...I hate X
....player must be punished so he does not do X again
Just to clarify if this was in reference to what I said about having a hard time not being annoyed with a player trying to pull this. I don't punish players, I try to be as neutral as a I can, regardless how I feel about them as players. I spend a lot of time doing head checks from the neck up to make sure I'm maintaining objectivity.
You should also run an experiment to see if someone can fall 60 feet and still get up to fight. Or, set them on fire to see if that damage is only superficial. I would hate to think the game rules didn't fully and accurately model reality.
+1
Have him try casting Magic Missle while you pour the water over him.
For those who were posting/reading here, Zizazat started a new thread yesterday for this topic over in the Pathfinder General Discussion forums.
|
|
You should also run an experiment to see if someone can fall 60 feet and still get up to fight. Or, set them on fire to see if that damage is only superficial. I would hate to think the game rules didn't fully and accurately model reality.
Exactly how much gasoline would it take to simulate a 10d6 fireball? Should I spread it out or pour it directly on myself?
|
You should also run an experiment to see if someone can fall 60 feet and still get up to fight. Or, set them on fire to see if that damage is only superficial. I would hate to think the game rules didn't fully and accurately model reality.Exactly how much gasoline would it take to simulate a 10d6 fireball? Should I spread it out or pour it directly on myself?
I think it would be like holding a zippo in front of one of those little camping stove propane tanks....
Not that my opinion is any more valid than another's but here is how I ruled this question in the past:
You can use Create Water to gently fill a receptacle, or you can use Create Water to create a 'downpour' of rain. I ruled that a 'downpour' was 'medium to heavy rain', and lasted for 6 seconds, and the area of effect was 'the minimum space required to hold a downpour's worth of Created Water'. I did not allow the Created Water to have any real 'force' behind it.
I did a little research to try to see how much water is falling during a downpour, but in the end decided that each casting of Create Water in the air caused a 5x5 square to be rained on heavily for 6 seconds per gallon of water. You can't use the spell to create mass quantities of water falling in one spot, a level 20 Create Water would cause heavy rain for 6 seconds over 40 contiguous 5x5 squares.
And then, I ruled that the rain counted as normal rain for that 6 second period, for purposes of archery, fire, distraction, etc. I felt that this was consistent with the presumed power level of the spell.
Alright, I have no clue where people are getting this six second rule, but the spell's description says the duration is instantaneous, meaning it all happens in an instant, a single second, not six seconds. The water drops all at once, hence the downpour, not over several seconds as a mist or normal rain. The spell also says that the water can be made to appear in as small a space as will hold it or in an area three times as large, which is the size that refers to a downpour. Which means that if a 1 foot cube contains 8 gallons of water, per the spell description, you could instead make that into a 3 foot cube and be a downpour. That is a lot of water to be dumped into a 3 foot by 3 foot area and would have more than enough force to disrupt a spell caster or an archer or anything that requires concentration to accomplish.
|
|
Alright, I have no clue where people are getting this six second rule, but the spell's description says the duration is instantaneous, meaning it all happens in an instant, a single second, not six seconds. The water drops all at once, hence the downpour, not over several seconds as a mist or normal rain. The spell also says that the water can be made to appear in as small a space as will hold it or in an area three times as large, which is the size that refers to a downpour. Which means that if a 1 foot cube contains 8 gallons of water, per the spell description, you could instead make that into a 3 foot cube and be a downpour. That is a lot of water to be dumped into a 3 foot by 3 foot area and would have more than enough force to disrupt a spell caster or an archer or anything that requires concentration to accomplish.
A downpour doesn't all come down at once, its a form of rain, other wise it would be called a wave.
Even if you say you can shape the water prior to it falling, you don't have a methiod of targeting. IMHO you can't assume that the spellcaster is always in the same spot in the 5 foot cube all the time in a single turn. Hence some spells offer "ranged touch" to hit, or Reflex saves to avoid. This spell offers neither. Hence it becomes more powerful than many, many other spells.
This subject of this spell was brought up over and over again during the play test as many people sought to exploit it in many ways.
Compare this to Daze.
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 0, sorcerer/wizard 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a pinch of wool or similar substance)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one humanoid creature of 4 HD or less
Duration 1 round
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
This spell clouds the mind of a humanoid creature with 4 or fewer Hit Dice so that it takes no actions. Humanoids of 5 or more HD are not affected. A dazed subject is not stunned, so attackers get no special advantage against it. After a creature has been dazed by this spell, it is immune to the effects of this spell for 1 minute.
Dazed Condition: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
vs.
School conjuration (creation) [water]; Level cleric 0, druid 0, paladin 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect up to 2 gallons of water/level
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
This spell generates wholesome, drinkable water, just like clean rain water. Water can be created in an area as small as will actually contain the liquid, or in an area three times as large--possibly creating a downpour or filling many small receptacles. This water disappears after 1 day if not consumed.
Note: Conjuration spells can't create substances or objects within a creature. Water weighs about 8 pounds per gallon. One cubic foot of water contains roughly 8 gallons and weighs about 60 pounds.
If you allow attacks with "Create Water" even if all the do is distract, one "0" level spell is more powerful than the other. There is no Saving Throw and no Spell Resistance.
Honestly I could live with a DC 5 + Spell Level caster check for this spell, but when you compare it apple to apples I can't see much more.
In battle I would make the player giver me a range attack to hit the square the target was in (similar to a splash weapon) if he makes the attack then he can have water downpour. The spell has a provision for conjuring in thin air (overruling the general rule). Its a very low DC due to being a 0 level spell. Its a creative use and deserves some meritt.
I can understand why people think that its overpowered when used as a distraction, however you are spending an action to TRY and disrupt a caster. No guarantee of success and at higher levels it will work even less.
Alright, I have no clue where people are getting this six second rule, but the spell's description says the duration is instantaneous, meaning it all happens in an instant, a single second, not six seconds.
Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
So, here's where I personally got it from. The magic that creates the water is instantaneous. However, it creates that water appears gently, not with force behind it. So I ruled that it takes time to 'fall' if a downpour, or 'fill' if in a container.
And the reason why I ruled that the time/duration was an issue, as well as the area of effect, is that I don't generally feel that 0-level spells should have major effects. Getting hit with 10 gallons of water that has the time to reach terminal velocity while held in as dense of a form as possible would knock you over, possibly damaging you. I do not feel that that is on par with the presumed power level of a 0-level spell.
Hence my ruling that you either fill a receptacle, or make it rain.
There aren't any rules for the spell that are as granular as necessary to deal with the effects of water in certain configurations at certain velocities. So, I simplified the spell to 'Rules as I believe they are intended' and limited it to gentle effects. I will admit, I don't like the idea of using create water as a weapon... if it were something that could be weaponized, it should say so in the description.
I personally like the visuals of a cleric touching an empty fountain or well, or even a dried pond, and chanting as water flows at a reasonable rate every round until he stops casting. I like the visual of the cleric raising his hands to the heavens and summoning a tiny rainstorm to water crops.
I don't care for the visual of 'huck a water ball at that guy!' when attached to Create Water.
Hucking waterballs is a cool spell effect, but one that should be relegated to an actual spell (Delayed Huck Waterball, Sorcerer/Wizard 4) and not a cantrip that is clearly meant to resolve issues of drought/thirst.
Alright, I have no clue where people are getting this six second rule, but the spell's description says the duration is instantaneous, meaning it all happens in an instant, a single second, not six seconds.Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.So, here's where I personally got it from. The magic that creates the water is instantaneous. However, it creates that water appears gently, not with force behind it. So I ruled that it takes time to 'fall' if a downpour, or 'fill' if in a container.
And the reason why I ruled that the time/duration was an issue, as well as the area of effect, is that I don't generally feel that 0-level spells should have major effects. Getting hit with 10 gallons of water that has the time to reach terminal velocity while held in as dense of a form as possible would knock you over, possibly damaging you. I do not feel that that is on par with the presumed power level of a 0-level spell.
Hence my ruling that you either fill a receptacle, or make it rain.
There aren't any rules for the spell that are as granular as necessary to deal with the effects of water in certain configurations at certain velocities. So, I simplified the spell to 'Rules as I believe they are intended' and limited it to gentle effects. I will admit, I don't like the idea of using create water as a weapon... if it were something that could be weaponized, it should say so in the description.
I personally like the visuals of a cleric touching an empty fountain or well, or even a dried pond, and chanting as water flows at a reasonable rate every round until he stops casting. I like the visual of the cleric raising his hands to the heavens and summoning a tiny rainstorm to water crops.
I don't care for the visual of 'huck a water ball at that guy!' when attached to Create Water.
Hucking waterballs is a cool spell effect, but one that should be...
I agree that hucking waterballs is rediculous as well as allowing the spell to damage or have enough force to move a target. However be caught in a gentle rain is very different than a downpour. A mage standing outside while its raining might not need to concentrate (though perhaps he might have to) a sudden downpour out of nowhere is not only suprising (distracting possibly) but could cause water to get in the casters eyes, breaking his concentration.
What if my rogue hides on a ledge and readies a bucket of water to dump on a caster as he tries to cast? Shouldn't that distract him?
I agree that hucking waterballs is rediculous as well as allowing the spell to damage or have enough force to move a target. However be caught in a gentle rain is very different than a downpour. A mage standing outside while its raining might not need to concentrate (though perhaps he might have to) a sudden downpour out of nowhere is not only suprising (distracting possibly) but could cause water to get in the casters eyes, breaking his concentration.
What if my rogue hides on a ledge and readies a bucket of water to dump on a caster as he tries to cast? Shouldn't that distract him?
Well, there are rules for weather in the game. I'd say that in the case of a 'surprise' downpour, the caster in question would be more likely to be distracted than not. If I was mid-spell casting and suddenly a heavy rain started falling, it might distract me. However, the caster could get a spellcraft check to recognize the spell being cast, and then know he was about to get drenched.
Now, for the bucket of water from the rogue... First, a bucket of water being dumped is targeted and can have force behind it, directing it at the target. Sounds like a ranged touch attack to me. If the rogue is attacking from stealth with said water, and hits, I'd call for a concentration check.
In this case, the forceful launching of water at a single target would be more effective than rain, while also having the chance to 'miss'. That makes sense to me.
I agree that hucking waterballs is rediculous as well as allowing the spell to damage or have enough force to move a target. However be caught in a gentle rain is very different than a downpour. A mage standing outside while its raining might not need to concentrate (though perhaps he might have to) a sudden downpour out of nowhere is not only suprising (distracting possibly) but could cause water to get in the casters eyes, breaking his concentration.
What if my rogue hides on a ledge and readies a bucket of water to dump on a caster as he tries to cast? Shouldn't that distract him?
Well, there are rules for weather in the game. I'd say that in the case of a 'surprise' downpour, the caster in question would be more likely to be distracted than not. If I was mid-spell casting and suddenly a heavy rain started falling, it might distract me. However, the caster could get a spellcraft check to recognize the spell being cast, and then know he was about to get drenched.
Now, for the bucket of water from the rogue... First, a bucket of water being dumped is targeted and can have force behind it, directing it at the target. Sounds like a ranged touch attack to me. If the rogue is attacking from stealth with said water, and hits, I'd call for a concentration check.
In this case, the forceful launching of water at a single target would be more effective than rain, while also having the chance to 'miss'. That makes sense to me.
Good point on the opposed spellcraft check to recognize.
|
|
Good point on the opposed spellcraft check to recognize.I agree that hucking waterballs is rediculous as well as allowing the spell to damage or have enough force to move a target. However be caught in a gentle rain is very different than a downpour. A mage standing outside while its raining might not need to concentrate (though perhaps he might have to) a sudden downpour out of nowhere is not only suprising (distracting possibly) but could cause water to get in the casters eyes, breaking his concentration.
What if my rogue hides on a ledge and readies a bucket of water to dump on a caster as he tries to cast? Shouldn't that distract him?
Well, there are rules for weather in the game. I'd say that in the case of a 'surprise' downpour, the caster in question would be more likely to be distracted than not. If I was mid-spell casting and suddenly a heavy rain started falling, it might distract me. However, the caster could get a spellcraft check to recognize the spell being cast, and then know he was about to get drenched.
Now, for the bucket of water from the rogue... First, a bucket of water being dumped is targeted and can have force behind it, directing it at the target. Sounds like a ranged touch attack to me. If the rogue is attacking from stealth with said water, and hits, I'd call for a concentration check.
In this case, the forceful launching of water at a single target would be more effective than rain, while also having the chance to 'miss'. That makes sense to me.
+1
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You should also run an experiment to see if someone can fall 60 feet and still get up to fight. Or, set them on fire to see if that damage is only superficial. I would hate to think the game rules didn't fully and accurately model reality.Exactly how much gasoline would it take to simulate a 10d6 fireball? Should I spread it out or pour it directly on myself?
Try it both ways. If you're high enough level, you should be fine either way.
Well, there are rules for weather in the game. I'd say that in the case of a 'surprise' downpour, the caster in question would be more likely to be distracted than not. If I was mid-spell casting and suddenly a heavy rain started falling, it might distract me. However, the caster could get a spellcraft check to recognize the spell being cast, and then know he was about to get drenched.
Way back near the beginning of this discussion I am pretty sure that more than once I said this trick could work so long as the opposing caster did not recognize that a spell was possibly being cast in his direction. If the caster knew something was coming, just not what, then I would definitely give him a concentration check or a reflex save. Or both. One to avoid losing their own spell and the other to avoid getting totally soaked and avoid getting papers and scrolls and spell components ruined by the water. I would also say that this trick was impossible to do while the target was moving, because you have to pick a stationary spot for the water to appear, or at least that is my interpretation of all the summon/creation spells.
|
|
I'm all for create water necessitating a concentration check, but that this use of the spell should require a ranged touch attack and possibly a damage roll. Let me tell you my considerations and why.
How well could a caster target create water?
The range is close with no target listing, so it can be legally targeted in any specific location within that range from the caster so long as that is not inside another creature or object.
How large an area could create water affect?
The spell description states that an area three times as large as the smallest area that could hold the conjured water is the maximum spread one could achieve. To make this easy and neutral to the outcome, let's assume that this area is a cube. One gallon (US) is equal to 0.13 cubic feet, according to the first conversion tool I found through Google, which is, rounding down, barely over a six-inch cube. Creating two gallons per caster level increases this, but not by an incredible amount: two gallons, rounded down is about a 7.6-inch cube. Thus, the largest possible area affected at the lowest caster level possible is a 1.9 foot cube. At CL5, about a 3.25 foot cube is created, at CL10 a 4.25 foot cube, at CL15 a 4.7 foot cube, at CL20 a 5.18 foot cube and so on, with decreasing results due to the surface area's increasing spread as the volume increases. This would be small enough, IMHO, to restrict a single casting of create water to one five-foot square.
What about Falling Objects rules?
The conjured water is a falling object in this scenario, as it could not be created within another object or creature. According to those rules, it should be resolved with a ranged touch attack (Core page 443) with a range increment of twenty feet.
Why is the range increment important?
Water is heavy, and it can hurt you. With the right forces applied, it cuts diamonds (though I'm not saying that create water can). If you don't believe me, go out to a swimming pool and do a belly flop. In our scenario, as in Soviet Russia, the water belly flops you.
This gets into rules interpretation, but I'd say that because the water is spread out or would do so naturally once affected by gravity, it should automatically halve any damage because it is not a dense material, though at eight pounds per gallon, it is rather heavy. Because of the lack of a container, the farther that the water falls, the less damage it should deal, perhaps halving at 30' and becoming harmless at 150' - opposing of the modifiers for falling objects because it will spread out as it falls. In addition, I would still apply the regular falling objects rules, so the water would deal 1/4 damage under 150', above which it would be harmless. I'd also make an exception to the rule of minimum damage being one because the create water spell doesn't list damage. I would round down if the damage result would divide with a fraction of less than 1/2 of a hit point.
The next question in determining possible damage is the size of the object. The measurements I give above could count as face measurements, but they aren't easy to determine in play, so I'd more likely guess-timate based on the volume created in gallons, probably along the lines of the water counting as tiny until CL10, when it is small until CL20, when it is medium.
I suppose that I should also mention that I think that the damage dealt should be nonlethal, due to the lack of a ruling or damage listing in the spell description and liquid's tendency to spread as it falls.
All of that out of the way, I would rule that the maximum damage for create water at CL20 is a whopping five points of nonlethal damage. For balance concerns, this probably only raises the DC of the concentration check.
Concentration check? But why?
Spell: If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you’re casting.
If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell’s saving throw DC + the level of the spell you’re casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it’s the DC that the spell’s saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster’s ability score).
I mean, reading about concentration checks, it's RAW to me. If a caster is hit by the water generated, but no damage is dealt, the DC is 10 + the CW caster's relevant modifier. If the falling water deals damage, the DC is 10 + the maximum 5 damage at CL20 + the level of the spell that is being cast by whoever just got wet.
Whew!
It looks complicated, and it took some time to write, but I think it is the easiest, fairest and closest to the rules I see in my Core rulebook as I could get. I don't care how powerful it is or isn't until it gets tired, at which point, assuming I am GMing, I will ask the player not to use the spell that way.
I have used create water with a high-level cleric in a past game not only to distract, but to aid my fellows in attempting to perceive something affected by invisibility. That said, I used it only those two times, because I wanted to have fun instead of being a rules lawyer. I wanted to let the other players have fun, too - if you don't want other players to have fun, then my best advice is to turn off the computer, stop making this work and just play the game. :P
Though I should mention that I also agree with and like the DC5+ ruling. It's more ...elegant than mine. :D
|
There are so many finge cases like this that one can never get an "official" answer to all of them. This is why GMs are not robots. Whether one agrees with or disagrees with a ruling isn't really the point, but rather that GMs should have the ability to make these decisions at the table as they see fit. I certainly hope that we as the PFS community don't start micromanaging every call GMs make on the boards and expecting that we will run games by committee, or worse, that Paizo staff will do so for us.I am certainly not advocating that. In the past I have come out very strongly in favor of the table judgment and I stand by that. However, as I player I also expect a reasoned explanation as to why. Because you don't like, or understand, a rule is not a reasoned explanation in an organized play environment however.
I'd just like to add that I had a similar rules question come up in one game at Gen Con where players were more knowledgeable about a particular spell and I let their interpretation stand. Afterward, I asked Joshua Frost specifically how the spell worked and found out they were wrong. I ruled the spell differently for another group. In the ensuing argument, they said I should "call Josh over" and I was actually in a position to not be cowed by the idea of submitting to Josh for summary spell ruling, since my interpretation was coming straight from him. But the PCs tried very hard to wield Josh's authority like a blunt instrument for that moment. Having run for Paizo before at conventions, I know they treat judges and their discretion very well and given the need to keep things going for a group of sometimes seven strangers who all want to play and have a good time, I applaud them for it. The rules are there to keep the game from going off the rails, but it's the table GM who has to balance rules and story(sometimes while discovering rules for the first time, as I did when people started casting spells from their new Advanced Player's Guides).
Whether or not the judge likes or agrees with a rule doesn't matter. What matters is that some players wield the rules like a blunt instrument and treat each judge like an encounter to defeat for XP and loot. Unless I'm horribly mistaken, the goal is fun for all involved. The rules are grease to keep the wheels turning. Judges shouldn't abuse their authority any more than players should abuse the rules. On that, I will not argue. But I've known very talented judges who had to make judgment calls because applying the rules led to TPK after TPK. Organized play is far more dodgy than a home game. The rules are not always your friend.
Moved to the Rules forum.
My 2cp worth:
It's at least creative enough to warrant some chance of success a DC 10 concentration check with a caveat that it will only work once on the enemy (since he won't be surprised by that a second time) seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Characters with better concentration checks will presumably be sufficiently used to casting amidst distractions that they can shrug it off easily. A fledgling mage who has just learnt how to cast magic missile however could conceivably have a chance of having his spell ruined from this (and even a 1st level wizard with 11 INT would still have approx 50% chance of failure, and a 2nd level wizard with 16 INT has half that).
Is it so bad to reward players for ingenuity? =)