Lock Ward (Binding)
school abjuration; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
duration permanent
saving Throw Will negates (harmless); spell resistance yes
(harmless)
Target restrictions selected
This effect word causes one unattended object to close, such
as a door, chest, or book. If the object possesses a lock, the
object is also locked. If the wordspell includes other effect
words, the effects of those words are suspended until a
creature other than the wordcaster attempts to unlock or
otherwise open the object. That creature becomes the target
of the other effect words, as if those effect words had the
selected target word. Only consider the other effect words
when determining the duration of this secondary effect.
So, if I'm understanding this effect word correctly, you could use it to enchant an empty potion bottle so that when someone opens it, he would get say... Energy Resistance or Enhance Form cast upon him. From what I can tell, this allows you basically go around enchanting random open-able objects with buff spells that you can hand out to your party so that they can activate the spells on their own.
Here's the real question though. Does having one of these 'enchanted' items sitting around prevent you from regaining your spell normally the next day? It sure doesn't seem like that way... so this spell effectively lets you break the spells per day limitation as long as you prepare the items beforehand. The only downside is that you can't have the Lock Wards cast buffs on yourself.
Anyone disagree with this interpretation? I'm pretty sure that Lock Ward was not intended to be used this way, but it is still a pretty powerful ability for wordcasters.
Suggestion: You cast the spell into the lock and may not replenish that slot used for that spell until the lock is expended.
This means you can have loads of locks hanging around, but won't be able to prepare many spells until they're used.
Hmm, that is an unintended usage.
I think the slot should probably remain used until the container is opened, or this should have a limit of one at a time.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Haha, you caught this topic pretty fast.
Another option would be to only allow the Lock Ward to use other effect words from certain categories (the ones that do damage or have unpleasant effects). I guess it depends upon how you had intended for Lock Ward to be used in the first place.
Hmmm, I just thought of another use for Lock Ward. Cast it upon a filled potion bottle. The person who opens and drinks the potion gets two buffs for just a standard action!
*sigh* It is too bad that the errata-ed version of this spell probably is going to be not nearly as useful. Still, it is probably a bit too abuseable right now XD
I would specifically get some play-testers that are very good about finding loopholes and other ways to break the game. Hell, you could make a contest out of it.
I volunteer. I will do it completely for free. I'm good at doing the rules lawyer thing.
So am I, and my GM's hate me for it.....does this make us bad people?I would specifically get some play-testers that are very good about finding loopholes and other ways to break the game. Hell, you could make a contest out of it.I volunteer. I will do it completely for free. I'm good at doing the rules lawyer thing.
I do it for my GM's. Everyone in the area knows they can call me to get help with rules, and I can help the GM's remember the NPC abilities so they don't get screwed because they forgot something has evasion, or see in darkness or whatever.
So no -- it's a tool, just like any other it's in how you use it.
Fair enough. I do it to make my GM's pull out their hair and nerf my abilities. Still, I enjoy myself.
Well then yes -- you probably are an evil person. As evil (in system) is defined by enjoy causing others pain and anguish.
So you have that going for you ;)
Hmm, that is an unintended usage.
I think the slot should probably remain used until the container is opened, or this should have a limit of one at a time.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Reminds me of the paper amulets popular in the middle ages.
More playtesting next time. :)
Thoughts?
Yeah, playtesting every portion of a book of this size would mean that we would not get much else done that year. It takes long enough to playtest the key sections.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Lots of people have been suggesting it, but I'm sure that there are a lot of players out there who would love to playtest or review your books for free before they went out for print (I would be one of them, haha).
Of course, this could lead to content getting out early if someone leaks it. So, I guess it depends on which worries you more: having to do more errata after a books is already out, or information getting out early.
Lots of people have been suggesting it, but I'm sure that there are a lot of players out there who would love to playtest or review your books for free before they went out for print (I would be one of them, haha).Of course, this could lead to content getting out early if someone leaks it. So, I guess it depends on which worries you more: having to do more errata after a books is already out, or information getting out early.
Simple contract could handle that though -- and all we really need to do is catch the rule errors.
Like recommending spell shield for the staff magus (a really bad idea).
Lots of people have been suggesting it, but I'm sure that there are a lot of players out there who would love to playtest or review your books for free before they went out for print (I would be one of them, haha).Of course, this could lead to content getting out early if someone leaks it. So, I guess it depends on which worries you more: having to do more errata after a books is already out, or information getting out early.
Simple contract could handle that though -- and all we really need to do is catch the rule errors.
Like recommending spell shield for the staff magus (a really bad idea).
Yeah, a simple nondisclosure clause in the review contract (which would need to be physically mailed and notarized or something, probably) should handle this.
I also volunteer, also for free. I do the same kind of "rules-lawyering" for my local GMs - though I'm probably not quite as good...
Hmm, that is an unintended usage.
I think the slot should probably remain used until the container is opened, or this should have a limit of one at a time.
Thoughts?
I would not want to see the spell changed to say that the spell slot does not refresh, because that eliminates what is seemingly the original intent of the spell: a mage goes around setting up booby-traps all over his lair. This is a staple of fantasy, and something that we've run into (conceptually at least) in a few APs so far. If you include the "slots don't refresh" clause, it also opens up questions of "what happens if the mage dies, does the Locked Ward go away?" and from a GM's POV, you definately want long-dead mages to still have their traps up.
I think a better fix is to stipulate that it cannot be combined with any spell that has "saving throw: harmless"
I would specifically get some play-testers that are very good about finding loopholes and other ways to break the game. Hell, you could make a contest out of it.More playtesting next time. :)
Thoughts?
Yeah, playtesting every portion of a book of this size would mean that we would not get much else done that year. It takes long enough to playtest the key sections.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
They're called message boards.
They're called message boards.
The problem is these are things you don't need play testers for -- you need rules lawyers for it. It isn't testing anything it's debugging code for the game system.
And you don't just want everyone on the message board fondling your intellectual property either -- you might give away ideas you aren't quite ready to use or lose yet among other things.
They're called message boards.The problem is these are things you don't need play testers for -- you need rules lawyers for it. It isn't testing anything it's debugging code for the game system.
And you don't just want everyone on the message board fondling your intellectual property either -- you might give away ideas you aren't quite ready to use or lose yet among other things.
I meant it happens as is. I didn't mean giving it away on the message boards.
The problem is these are things you don't need play testers for -- you need rules lawyers for it. It isn't testing anything it's debugging code for the game system.
As someone who works in the software industry: yes, having a QA team is a good thing. So are team-wide code reviews.
Jason, let me know if you're looking to hire an SDET Lead, or would appreciate one as a consultant. I'm already based in Bellevue. ;-)
The problem is these are things you don't need play testers for -- you need rules lawyers for it. It isn't testing anything it's debugging code for the game system.As someone who works in the software industry: yes, having a QA team is a good thing. So are team-wide code reviews.
Jason, let me know if you're looking to hire an SDET Lead, or would appreciate one as a consultant. I'm already based in Bellevue. ;-)
Exactly it saves time because they don't have to sit there and look at their own work trying to pick out their own nits (which is very hard).
Having a small team to do this would help point them exactly where the issues in the rules are, and let them decide if that is how they want it to play out.
Honestly there is no real way the writing and editing team can do this well:
They have all the writing to focus on, and all the history, in addition to everything else on their plate. They simply don't have the room or focus for referencing the rules on a regular basis, and being sure that everything is kosher.