| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Is table 4-1 in Ultimate Magic a finite table? Or is it meant only as an example, and the progressions keep going following the pattern presented in the table?
For example, could I cast a wordspell with FOUR 1st-level effect words as a 5th-level spell? A four effect word combo is not shown on the table, but follows the same progression if all component effects are four levels lower than the total spell level.
If you were to put a new column on the table for four effect words, it would look something like this:
4th - 0/0/0/0
5th - 1/1/1/1, 2/1/1/1
6th - 2/2/2/2, 3/2/2/2
And so on.
Is table 4-1 in Ultimate Magic a finite table? Or is it meant only as an example, and the progressions keep going following the pattern presented in the table?
For example, could I cast a wordspell with FOUR 1st-level effect words as a 5th-level spell? A four effect word combo is not shown on the table, but follows the same progression if all component effects are four levels lower than the total spell level.
If you were to put a new column on the table for four effect words, it would look something like this:
4th - 0/0/0/0
5th - 1/1/1/1, 2/1/1/1
6th - 2/2/2/2, 3/2/2/2And so on.
I'd have to say no. Being able to drop that many different effects at once would overpower wordspells.
I'd have to say no. Being able to drop that many different effects at once would overpower wordspells.
It's a lot of effects, but its also a lot of low level effects. Is casting Shield, Protection from Evil, Vanish and Enlarge Person in a single action really more powerful than casting one of Suffocation, Polymorph or Waves of Fatigue?
(I'm using spells rather than words since I'm away from my books and don't have access to the word lists. Substitute appropriate words.)
I don't recall anything indicating that it could be done, but it certainly seems a reasonable house rule.
"Alternatively, the wordspell might include one
4th-level effect word and one 2nd-level effect word, or one
3rd level effect word and two 1st-level effect words."
Quote from Ultimate Magic.
"Alternatively, the wordspell might include one
4th-level effect word and one 2nd-level effect word, or one
3rd level effect word and two 1st-level effect words."
Quote from Ultimate Magic.
Right, those two entries are in the table. But it doesn't say anything about extrapolating from the table to other combinations.
Personally, I'd just use the table as-is and not allow other combinations, just because it seems like a good enough place to draw the line.
So basically to sum it up:
Unless someone from paizo jumps in, either allow it to be extrapolated or only allow what is on the table.
:P
Nothing in the rules right now really specifies.
I agree that it seems reasonable to allow it.
If you only allow what's on the table, many common sense combinations become impossible, such as a 3/2/1 combo, for example.
If you only allow what's on the table, many common sense combinations become impossible, such as a 3/2/1 combo, for example.
On the contrary; the rules say:
"The maximum level of the effect words contained within a wordspell depends on the level of the spell slot used and the number of words arranged in the wordspell, as noted on Table 4–1: Effect Word Combinations."
Emphasis mine. Look at the example wordspell "Selected Alignment Shield Enhance Form Grave Bane" -- it uses a 4th level, a 2nd level and a 1st level (total level = 6th) and it says:
"Note that alignment shield is only 1st level, and could be replaced with a 2nd-level effect word without changing the overall level of the spell."
Your 3/2/1 combination would be a level 6 wordspell (a 3/3/3 or 4/2/2 combo with some wasted levels).
If you only allow what's on the table, many common sense combinations become impossible, such as a 3/2/1 combo, for example.On the contrary; the rules say:
"The maximum level of the effect words contained within a wordspell depends on the level of the spell slot used and the number of words arranged in the wordspell, as noted on Table 4–1: Effect Word Combinations."
Emphasis mine. Look at the example wordspell "Selected Alignment Shield Enhance Form Grave Bane" -- it uses a 4th level, a 2nd level and a 1st level (total level = 6th) and it says:
"Note that alignment shield is only 1st level, and could be replaced with a 2nd-level effect word without changing the overall level of the spell."
Your 3/2/1 combination would be a level 6 wordspell (a 3/3/3 or 4/2/2 combo with some wasted levels).
It's a 5th level combination.
A 3/1 combo is a 4th level wordspell. A 4/2 combo is a 5th level wordspell.
Every entry in the Three Effect Words column of the chart can be reconstructed from the Two Effect Words column. It's not too difficult to extrapolate a Four, Five, Six, etc Effect Word column. And it's clear there are a lot of combinations missing from the Three Effect Word column. Such as the 3/2/1 combination.
A 4/2/1 combination HAS to be a 6th level slot. A 4/2 is a 5th level combo. A 5/1 is clearly higher than a 5th level slot. You actually could go with a 4/3/1 or a 4/2/2 and still be in the 6th level slot.
Read Ravingdork's comment again; he claimed that a 3/2/1 combination would be impossible unless extrapolating from the table is allowed. That's just false; you can certainly cast it as a 3/3/3 spell using a level 6 slot even without extrapolating.
As you note, if you allow extrapolating from the table, you could cast it with a level 5 slot.
Read Ravingdork's comment again; he claimed that a 3/2/1 combination would be impossible unless extrapolating from the table is allowed. That's just false; you can certainly cast it as a 3/3/3 spell using a level 6 slot even without extrapolating.
As you note, if you allow extrapolating from the table, you could cast it with a level 5 slot.
I think you're skimming over Ravingdork's conditional in his comment. Quoted below again, emphasis mine:
If you only allow what's on the table, many common sense combinations become impossible, such as a 3/2/1 combo, for example.I think Ravingdork made this comment, because you made this statement:
Personally, I'd just use the table as-is and not allow other combinations, just because it seems like a good enough place to draw the line.Again, I'm fine with using the table as-is, because the table provides all you need to make every combination.
I would think if the Words of Power system was limited to no more than three effect words, they'd have stated that outright, and not left the door wide open with this sentence:
A wordspell can have more than one effect word, even ones from different schools of magic.It'd have been real easy to modify that sentence to "can have between one and three effect words, where each may belong to a different school of magic."
Exactly right.
I think you're skimming over Ravingdork's conditional in his comment. Quoted below again, emphasis mine:
If you only allow what's on the table, many common sense combinations become impossible, such as a 3/2/1 combo, for example.I think Ravingdork made this comment, because you made this statement:
Personally, I'd just use the table as-is and not allow other combinations, just because it seems like a good enough place to draw the line.
So? His statement is still false, as I pointed out above -- the combination is not impossible at all even if you use only the combinations listed in the table, because the numbers in the table indicate the maximum level, not the exact level in the combination. I.e. a 3/3/3 combination means that you can combine three words each of which is at most level 3 (not exactly level 3).
I'm not advocating that the numbers on the table are absolute.
I was asking if they were when I started this thread. The matter seems to be unclear at best.
In my post quoted above, my comment was made strictly in the context of Hogarth's comment, just as Adam Ormond stated.
I can't be right or wrong as it wasn't an absolute statement. I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of Hogarth's statement.
What does this statement mean, then?
"If you only allow what's on the table, many common sense combinations become impossible, such as a 3/2/1 combo, for example."
We've established that if you only allow what's on the table, a 3/2/1 combo is possible. So what do you mean by "impossible"
So? His statement is still false, as I pointed out above -- the combination is not impossible at all even if you use only the combinations listed in the table, because the numbers in the table indicate the maximum level, not the exact level in the combination. I.e. a 3/3/3 combination means that you can combine three words each of which is at most level 3 (not exactly level 3).
I think you're skimming over Ravingdork's conditional in his comment. Quoted below again, emphasis mine:
If you only allow what's on the table, many common sense combinations become impossible, such as a 3/2/1 combo, for example.I think Ravingdork made this comment, because you made this statement:
Personally, I'd just use the table as-is and not allow other combinations, just because it seems like a good enough place to draw the line.
My statement is NOT false. Look at the qualifier. If you ONLY allow the level combos on the table than my statement is ABSOLUTELY true.
In any case, I did not see the other rules text you quoted. Thank you for pointing it out. It at least partially answers my initial question in my original post.
In any case, I did not see the other rules text you quoted. Thank you for pointing it out.
Okay, I can see that if you missed the paragraph that explained how the table works, then it would be confusing for you.
I think there's an error in the table.
Under 9th level spells, it lists 8/5, but this breaks the pattern for every level lower than 9th.
From 8th down, it goes: 7/5, 6/4, 5/3, 4/2, 3/1, 2/0. And for three effect words, it goes 5/5/5, 4/4/4, 3/3/3, 2/2/2, 1/1/1, 0/0/0.
But for some inexplicable reason, while 9th has a 6/6/6 combo, 8/6 isn't the two-word combo.
Please post this in the errata thread if you haven't already.
The table is finite.