I'm really confused. Are you agreeing with me or not? I got that you're Really Angry and, gosh darn it, You're Gonna Show Me How Awesome You Are and I really liked the way you picked apart the minutae of my post - I don't think many doctoral dissertations receive so much attention - but, was there any point to your post other than some clumsy attacks aimed in my general direction?
Just curious. If you want, I can grade it. I'm going to go with C. You were really reaching to find something to disagree with me about (I think, it's really hard to tell), and mostly just threw together a bunch of ad hominems. I could probably flag it and the mods would rightfully remove it, but it's not really worth the effort. I think it's better to stand as a testament to Very Angry Badly Aimed Attacks.
Maybe next time, try "Sebastian, you're totally right, I agree with everything you say and think you're awesome. Will you please tell me what else to think." I like it because, while it may seem sarcastic, it's also true.
Oh, no, not angry at all. In fact, as I stated, I was positively giddy.
I don't get your confusion. I clearly agreed with some of your points and disagreed with others. I even itemized them for you; I was quite specific.
Nor did I attack anything, badly aimed or otherwise. I even thanked you for several invaluable tips.
And I think it was worth at least a B-.
And as for your suggested response, I've copied and pasted it into my saved quotes page. I'll gladly post that very quote when you actually are totally right and when I actually do agree with everything you say and when I actually do think you're awesome. On that day, I'll post your suggested response.
Now, how about we both get on with the actual discussion at hand, to which I've already contributed some thoughts and to which you've contributed a recap of what everyone else has been saying. Do either of have anything else to add or are you and I done here?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Now, how about we both get on with the actual discussion at hand, to which I've already contributed some thoughts and to which you've contributed a recap of what everyone else has been saying. Do either of have anything else to add or are you and I done here?
I didn't know we had even started, but, uh, okay. I still have no idea what your point was, but I'll leave that for wiser persons than me to ponder. Hopefully, your spleen feels better for having been vented.
I don't think many doctoral dissertations receive so much attention
::Tosses bunch of carrots and sugar cubes into the trashcan and storms from the thread::
|
Ok, folks I think that we are actually closer to agreeing than we are actually disagreeing.
There seem to be three positions here.
1) Can't be done
2) Could be done, same are rain, DC 5 + level of spell
3) Could be done, varible DC depending on the amount of water.
I lean towards option 2 as it seems like a good compromise and there are rules that back this up.
What do others think? What option would you choose? (not that this will have any weight on how Paizo rules on this.)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't think many doctoral dissertations receive so much attention** spoiler omitted **
You didn't know? Doctorates are granted using the exact same method to choose the next Pope. Whoever picks the brown pickled egg out of the bottle receives a doctorate.
And yet you claim to have two doctorates...
Fishy...very fishy...
|
Being pedantic:... possibly creating a downpour ...Downpour: Treat as rainWind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell levelSeems about right to me both in the spirit and guidelines of the rules. Worth a flyer if you have little else to do, but you'd be better off with acid splash as a cheapo counterspell attempt.
I agree with FarmerBob. The linkage of terms for a downpour, rain and the effects of rain on spellcasting are pretty clear. It's not a guaranteed distraction but it's a Hail Mary when you've got nothing else to do at low level.
PCs and NPCs are a cut above the normal population. And spellcasters specialize in casting spells in combat situations and hostile environments. It takes a lot to distract their 'heroic' concentration- especially at higher levels. If they can take an arrow in the back or a cut from a sword and still have a pretty good chance of completing their spells, a deluge of rain should not be as difficult to deal with. Heck, casting a spell underwater while holding your breath is a DC 15 + spell level and that would be MUCH more difficult to do than trying to get a spell off in a bad rainstorm.
Treat the Create Water distraction as if it were a downpour of rain (exactly as the spell description outlines) and apply the RAW for casting in a rainstorm. You adhere to the rules without making on-the-spot adjudications that will vary from table to table and from DM to DM. The power level is balanced and useful only at lower levels when there is actually a chance for failure. It makes sense, satisfies the rules and is balanced. What else can you ask for?
How about other uses for this 0-level spell?
Could you use it to create a slick muddy surface around a group of enemy fighters? Or between you and a raging giant?
Could you use it to erode the foundation of a bridge or castle wall? Even at 5th level I can create 10 gallons of water every 6 seconds for the entire day.
I don't think many doctoral dissertations receive so much attention** spoiler omitted **You didn't know? Doctorates are granted using the exact same method to choose the next Pope. Whoever picks the brown pickled egg out of the bottle receives a doctorate.
And yet you claim to have two doctorates...
Fishy...very fishy...
God, I love commas.
|
|
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
Couple of points
- 3x as large is an "or" effect. So the water will be created in an area the size of an appropriate container or over an area x3 of what could contain that same amount of water. Nothing in between.- Downpour implies distribution as rainfall and not a column of water falling on the targets head.
- No target, so no control or focused area in the spell. The water is not focused but instead evenly distributed over the area - this area is ever expanding due to the volume of water (3x the size of appropriate container), so the distribution of water is exactly the same - the area just increases as the amount of water generated by the spell goes up/level. So a higher level caster just means more water over a larger area.
I would (as DM), give this one round of rain (or less) at best.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The rule's there, plain and simple. Really don't understand what the problem is.
Because there's still an open question on whether the spell affects the caster given that it doesn't have a saving throw or attack roll?
Because there's another rule that could potentially apply (the rain rule)?
It's not as black and white as you are trying to make it.
|
There are several posts I should find offensive here, however I am giggling to hard to truly take offense, for while it is offensive, it is offensive in much the same way as family guy is offensive, and sometimes you just have to laugh at it all.
Oh and onto to topic at hand, it will not work. Good idea though. You managed to get the wizards feet wet and now he is pissed.
Ok, folks I think that we are actually closer to agreeing than we are actually disagreeing.
There seem to be three positions here.
1) Can't be done
2) Could be done, same are rain, DC 5 + level of spell
3) Could be done, varible DC depending on the amount of water.I lean towards option 2 as it seems like a good compromise and there are rules that back this up.
What do others think? What option would you choose? (not that this will have any weight on how Paizo rules on this.)
First, the DC for rain is if you already know it is raining and you are standing in it and trying do something that requires that concentration check. But this has been about a caster being blindsided by a sudden downpour or whatever coming out of nowhere, especially if it is a bright sunny day or you are deep underground.
But anyway, I would say 2 if the caster knows something is coming because of a spellcraft roll or whatever and the amount of water was at the minimal end because it is being cast by a lower level caster. But I would say 3 if the caster has no clue he is about to be hit by a downpour or a cube of water or water in whatever shape you rule is legal or if it is coming from a higher level caster. And for 3, I would assign the standard of 10+ modifiers. Also, since this thread is about general rules and not the tighter rulings of PFS play like in the other thread, I would probably not even give an npc caster a roll at all if he were caught by surprise by this, because if would be more fun for the story-telling and the role-playing that way.
I can also see giving a reflex save, regardless of the concentration check results, in order 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.
Which means that a creature cannot be summoned into a vacuum or an air-breathing creature cannot be summoned underwater and vice versa for water-breathing creatures. A creature cannot be summoned into a place where it would automatically die. This is what it means by environment, not whether it has something to stand on or not.
The rule is also meant to prevent someone from summoning an aurochs or an elephant 30 feet above an enemy so that the falling creature crushes him flat. Phrasing used in the spell description for create water suggests that it is an exception to this rule, able to be conjured above a surface.
Since casting such a spell above a moving target would involve a fair amount of precision, I'd think it fair to require the caster to make a ranged touch attack to place the water for maximum distraction. Otherwise, the target evades the worst of the unleashed downpour and need not make a concentration check. While there is no mention of an attack roll in the spell description, it seems fair to conjecture that the original designers didn't envision create water as an attack spell except under very unusual circumstances (fire elementals and the like).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It is black and white. The caster is being affected by a spell. The spell has no saving throw, nor does it do damage. The rules on page 206 CLEARLY allow for such a spell affecting a caster. And if you look up affect in the dictionary, it says to act upon or produce change. Sounds like create water is acting upon or producing change in the caster (as in dousing him in 2 gallons of water/level).
Let's go through some other arguments.
Oh, well it's not the spell affecting the other caster, it's the water the spell created. OMG GOOD POINT! So I guess when a caster is in the middle of a stinking cloud (another conjuration-creation spell) he's not being affected by the stinking cloud spell, he's being affected by the cloud itself, therefore CLEARLY doesn't have to make a concentration check.
You can't cast conjuration creation spells in space! Oh wait, the spell description says you CAN, and spell descriptions override general magic information every time.
But there's a rain rule! Oh, wait, maybe the rain rule is applied to... *GASP* rain! Like as in RAIN. Precipitation that falls from the sky. I don't know if you've ever stood in, oh... say... Hurricane rain, but I have, and I got wet in six seconds, but not nearly as soaked (or impeded) as when I got a water cooler that contains -maybe- five gallons of water dumped on me, which is effectively what the spell is doing.
Stop being stubborn because you (any of you) don't like something. Make a move to have some errata released on it, or if you don't care to play in any official campagins or organized play events, just houserule it and be done with in. Constant insistence upon the same old tired argument that had no life in it to begin with isn't moving the discussion forward.
I'm done with this thread. It's gotten as ridiculous as the other questions I've asked. Wish I could lock it.
Sorry, not being stubborn. You're wrong.
This spell is relatively powerful for a cantrip, if for no other reason because it makes fighting fires and dealing with encumbrance for carrying water both ridiculously simplified, IMHO. It also removes one of the challenges for desert campaigns and eases the way for PCs and NPCs just a little too well. Add the possibility that a 5th level caster can effectively create 80 lbs of downpour on an area, and there is just waaaaaay too much utility from this supposedly simple cantrip.
For those reasons, I have house-ruled that this spell is increased to a 1st-level spell for both Clerics and Druids. Paladins already have it listed as a 1st level spell, and for all you Wizard-Duelers out there, no need to fear, as it's not a wizard/sorcerer spell and doesn't appear on their spell lists.
|
|
Yeah - I think people are missing the point here.
The spell area expands with the amount of water being created.
x3 the area of the containers you would use to hold the water.
So the more water you can create, the larger the area - not concentration of water. The area expands (x3) the amount of water created so the concentration does NOT increase
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
So the area - if created in an area - is x3 the size of the container which would have held the water if it was created to fit in a container.
So there are no cubes of water, the water is distributed at 3x the area of size of what the area of the containers would be - more gallons just means the water is dispersed over a wider area - not concentrated.
50 gallons - area x3 the area/space of containers which would hold 50 gallons
100 gallons - area x3 the area/space of containers which would hold 100 gallons.
I'm not going to do the math on how much space a flattened gallon (231 cubic inches) would take in feet- but that should be the formula - x3 this amount in inches/feet per gallon, which increases in area as the amount of water increases per level of the caster.
No concentration of water, no cubes of water, and no crushing water.
It is black and white. The caster is being affected by a spell. The spell has no saving throw, nor does it do damage. The rules on page 206 CLEARLY allow for such a spell affecting a caster. And if you look up affect in the dictionary, it says to act upon or produce change. Sounds like create water is acting upon or producing change in the caster (as in dousing him in 2 gallons of water/level).
If you're going to be that black and white, then a Light spell should force concentration checks on everyone within it's radius.
It is black and white. The caster is being affected by a spell. The spell has no saving throw, nor does it do damage. The rules on page 206 CLEARLY allow for such a spell affecting a caster. And if you look up affect in the dictionary, it says to act upon or produce change. Sounds like create water is acting upon or producing change in the caster (as in dousing him in 2 gallons of water/level).If you're going to be that black and white, then a Light spell should force concentration checks on everyone within it's radius.
Only if the center point of where the light appears is directly in front of a caster.
Only if the center point of where the light appears is directly in front of a caster.It is black and white. The caster is being affected by a spell. The spell has no saving throw, nor does it do damage. The rules on page 206 CLEARLY allow for such a spell affecting a caster. And if you look up affect in the dictionary, it says to act upon or produce change. Sounds like create water is acting upon or producing change in the caster (as in dousing him in 2 gallons of water/level).If you're going to be that black and white, then a Light spell should force concentration checks on everyone within it's radius.
Why? According to Mammon, it is black and white since " The caster is being affected by a spell. The spell has no saving throw, nor does it do damage. The rules on page 206 CLEARLY allow for such a spell affecting a caster. And if you look up affect in the dictionary, it says to act upon or produce change.".
A light spell, even at 20ft distance, acts upon and produces change on the wizard, for example skin tone and ability to see in front of him.
|
It is black and white. The caster is being affected by a spell. The spell has no saving throw, nor does it do damage. The rules on page 206 CLEARLY allow for such a spell affecting a caster. And if you look up affect in the dictionary, it says to act upon or produce change. Sounds like create water is acting upon or producing change in the caster (as in dousing him in 2 gallons of water/level).
Let's go through some other arguments.
Oh, well it's not the spell affecting the other caster, it's the water the spell created. OMG GOOD POINT! So I guess when a caster is in the middle of a stinking cloud (another conjuration-creation spell) he's not being affected by the stinking cloud spell, he's being affected by the cloud itself, therefore CLEARLY doesn't have to make a concentration check.
You can't cast conjuration creation spells in space! Oh wait, the spell description says you CAN, and spell descriptions override general magic information every time.
But there's a rain rule! Oh, wait, maybe the rain rule is applied to... *GASP* rain! Like as in RAIN. Precipitation that falls from the sky. I don't know if you've ever stood in, oh... say... Hurricane rain, but I have, and I got wet in six seconds, but not nearly as soaked (or impeded) as when I got a water cooler that contains -maybe- five gallons of water dumped on me, which is effectively what the spell is doing.
Stop being stubborn because you (any of you) don't like something. Make a move to have some errata released on it, or if you don't care to play in any official campagins or organized play events, just houserule it and be done with in. Constant insistence upon the same old tired argument that had no life in it to begin with isn't moving the discussion forward.
I'm done with this thread. It's gotten as ridiculous as the other questions I've asked. Wish I could lock it.
I think this highlights an excellent example of why you're a player and not a GM. GM's have the judgement to understand the intent of the written word, not it's literal meaning. A GM understands that he doesn't need a physics degree to make a spell work appropriately in a fantasy world. A GM will have made his call, and inacted the almighty rule of GM
PG. 402 PFRPG Core Rulebook
Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is
bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in
a situation where cheating might improve the game. We
prefer to call this “fudging” rather than cheating, and
while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the
law in your world, and you shouldn’t feel bound by the
dice.
I don't remember fudging being removed from PFS. Nor the ability for the GM to do whatever it takes to make the game enjoyable for the majority of players at his table. Though you are more than welcome to show me where I'm mistaken if I am. Bottom line, as a GM I'm going to do what I think is best, and make the game fun. If you don't like it, find another table or get a higher authority.
...but not nearly as soaked (or impeded) as when I got a water cooler that contains -maybe- five gallons of water dumped on me, which is effectively what the spell is doing.
Yeah, see, that's the problem. That's not what the spell is doing. It's not Aqua Cube, it's Create Water, a 0-level spell, and while I'd prefer tighter language, that "3X" bit implies at least a bit a lack of focus in terms of using it as an area effect.
It is black and white. The caster is being affected by a spell. The spell has no saving throw, nor does it do damage. The rules on page 206 CLEARLY allow for such a spell affecting a caster. And if you look up affect in the dictionary, it says to act upon or produce change. Sounds like create water is acting upon or producing change in the caster (as in dousing him in 2 gallons of water/level).
I think many things in gaming (and life for that matter) are shades of gray.
One could make a case that Create Water, Light, Message, etc could all potentially affect a spellcaster. Up to the GM to determine whether the circumstances warrant a concentration check. I think using these spells as a spellcasting distraction could make for some great roleplaying and memorable games. But if it became a regular and cheap counterspell route, I'd probably nerf them after awhile to keep the game interesting.
I do see this as much different than Touch of Idiocy, for example. The effect of that spell is measurable on a character in terms of game mechanics (ability penalties) and is more cut and dried that it would warrant the DC + spell level concentration check as described.
To each their own though. Rule #0 and all that.
|
|
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