Keep in mind there's no losing limbs in normal PF play, and the ring only works against injuries you suffer while it is worn. You can't slap it on a crippled man and expect his leg to be regrown, so that ability is moot.
ANY kind of magical healing stops bleed dmg, so THAT point is moot.
Which brings us down to 1 hp/rd of healing being the only really appropriate effect.
And your ring of continuous CLW is actually at least 5x as powerful as that, being roughly equivalent to Fast Healing 5.5.
1800 gp, I think not. The ring of unlimited CLW has been around since 3.0, and kept getting shot down then, too.
Rule #1: Compare to other items of similar effect.
THEN follow the pricing guidelines.
==Aelryinth
Director of Games
|
Regardless of which example you use (ring or ioun stone), I think it is pretty clear that we value unlimited healing a bit more than what the base formula would normally allow.
There is a bit of art to magic item design, and a bit of science. But, all told, this is mostly off topic for this particular thread, so I will say no more on it.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
A magus getting 20 full attacks in a row is overpowered and broken. This ability is merely useful.
How does a Magus get 20 full attacks in a row?
|
Since we only publish errata when we reprint a book, a forum clarification will have to suffice on this issue.
Were we to reprint the book, we would change the Glorious Heat feat to grant the fire spell's spell level in healing instead of character level. This keeps unlimited use orisons from being spammed, and 1st level spells from being abused at higher levels.
This clarification will appear in the July update to the Pathfinder Society Additional Resources document.
I have to say, I have a hard time grasping the bolded part. As far as I know, Pathfinder Society goes up to 12th level. At this point, a first level fire spell would have granted 6 hp under the original write-up of Glorious Heat. At this point, casting first level fire spells for the sole purpose of healing an ally isn't abusive, it's just stupid. Cure light wounds would heal 1d8+5 hp, which is 4.5 more hp on average. Even at 20th level, would only heal 0.5 hp more on average.
Or did I miss something that would make the quoted statement less ridiculous?
|
Or did I miss something that would make the quoted statement less ridiculous?
If you spam fire spells only to heal someone, it is decidedly ridiculous.
On the other hand if you cast a fire spell for its normal purpose (generally damaging one or more enemies) and get it to heal one or more HP to an ally and give him a +1 morale bonus to attack roll ant no extra spell slots (but at the cost of a feat) it is less ridiculous.
Benefit: When you cast a divine spell with the fire descriptor, choose a single ally within 30 feet that you can see. That ally heals half your level in hit points, and gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls until the end of its next turn.
It is not a healing spambot. It is a side benefit of a spell cast for another purpose.
So maybe the ridiculous part is using it primarily to heal someone.
|
|
Or did I miss something that would make the quoted statement less ridiculous?If you spam fire spells only to heal someone, it is decidedly ridiculous.
On the other hand if you cast a fire spell for its normal purpose (generally damaging one or more enemies) and get it to heal one or more HP to an ally and give him a +1 morale bonus to attack roll ant no extra spell slots (but at the cost of a feat) it is less ridiculous.
Benefit: When you cast a divine spell with the fire descriptor, choose a single ally within 30 feet that you can see. That ally heals half your level in hit points, and gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls until the end of its next turn.It is not a healing spambot. It is a side benefit of a spell cast for another purpose.
I won't disagree that casting a fire spell to heal someone when you could cast CLW and heal more is a ridiculous thing to do. But it's more a waste of a spell slot than an abuse that needs to be prevented.
I just wanted to say this is the reason I love Pathfinder.
The developers are not up in some crystal tower not listening to the people that use their product.
They are active and get down in the mud with the rest of us!
Thank you Pathfinder Developers for being so interactive with the users!!!
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"If Paizo wanted to say it, they would have said it in the rules text" kind of guy. The rules are in the book, and in the errata.
That is effectively a stance that allows any wild interpretation of the rules, with no check in place to refute it.
There will always be less Errata than FAQ and forum posts.
It's similar to the "RAW" stance you saw on all the Wizards forums that lead to things like "spells per day doesn't mean per day", "I get 1 million foot movement in one round by expending this persisted spell", and other strange (clearly flawed) interpretations of the rules that will never see Errata (but all had developers comment on how they work.)
|
|
"If Paizo wanted to say it, they would have said it in the rules text" kind of guy. The rules are in the book, and in the errata.That is effectively a stance that allows any wild interpretation of the rules, with no check in place to refute it.
There will always be less Errata than FAQ and forum posts.
It's similar to the "RAW" stance you saw on all the Wizards forums that lead to things like "spells per day doesn't mean per day", "I get 1 million foot movement in one round by expending this persisted spell", and other strange (clearly flawed) interpretations of the rules that will never see Errata (but all had developers comment on how they work.)
In this case, my reading is pretty flawless. To prove me wrong, the rules have to be changed (or had to be in case of PFS). A FAQ can only clarify rules (like saying Vital Strike is a standard action), but to actually change the way something works, you'll need errata. Or houserules. But saying a game only works with houserules is a pretty bad sign for a rules heavy game.
"If Paizo wanted to say it, they would have said it in the rules text" kind of guy. The rules are in the book, and in the errata.That is effectively a stance that allows any wild interpretation of the rules, with no check in place to refute it.
There will always be less Errata than FAQ and forum posts.
It's similar to the "RAW" stance you saw on all the Wizards forums that lead to things like "spells per day doesn't mean per day", "I get 1 million foot movement in one round by expending this persisted spell", and other strange (clearly flawed) interpretations of the rules that will never see Errata (but all had developers comment on how they work.)
Not really. Even with the Glorious Heat topic at hand, we're not talking about stupid wild interpretations. We're talking about taking the words at face value.
Feat says divine spells with fire descriptor heal caster level/2 hp.
There exists a zero level spell with the fire descriptor.
The question merely becomes - "Is the power level of this feat more than what the developers intended?"
Nobody has seriously raised any oddball definitions in order to support the feat giving unlimited out-of-combat healing. All anyone has debated is power level.
Paizo staff says they are not issuing errata, but are houseruling the feat for their own organized play campaign. Fine and dandy for them. They are the GM of that campaign.
Again, we're still not looking at any interpretation difference in the feat.
A Paizo dev comes on and says that the cost for OOC healing is lower than they intended, and that they would houserule it out.
The only question then is, if this cost is too low, then what is an appropriate cost.
Dev answers derp [by derp, I mean a non-responsive answer, that effectively stops any useful discussion]. Leaves discussion.
So what we're left with is a rule that some here feel is overly powerful, some feel is actually underpowered, and some see no problem with.
Paizo staff has said that they should not have released the rule as is, and will houserule it to a different wording, effectively castrating it for their own campaign.
Rule still exists. Nobody is questioning the interpretation of it. The fact that some devs think it is undercosted, while others (specifically the actual writer, and the actual editor who originally pushed the material out the door) felt the cost/power was in line with other feats.
How in the world does your "wild interpretation of the rules" post apply here?
Let me phrase it another way. When judges and courts look to interpret laws, to figure out exactly how to apply them, they don't go and interview the people who created them at the time for their opinion of how the law should be applied. They make look at debate while the law was being proposed, or at how other similar laws were worded to gauge similarity or differences in wording, but in the end, judges make an opinion based on the best interpretation of what was intended at the time the law was published. It doesn't matter to a current court how Bill Clinton thinks the Free Trade Act should be applied. What matters to a court is what the words on the paper say.
In the same way, it does not matter to me what a dev says about a rule after he or the company he works for pushes it out the door. If they wanted to specify circumstances and limitations, they had the opportunity to write that into the rule. When I read the rule, I try to find the plain text meaning, in order to apply the rule. And in cases where I find the plain text meaning to be obviously erroneous (look at the reading of Boon Companion. As written, it is wildly overpowered), I work with my DM to craft a houserule that fits what we feel the wording of the rule should have been, had the writers done their job correctly.
Nobody is served by overpowered combinations. There is a question of whether or not unlimited OOC healing is overpowered. That is between a player and his GM. The dev's opinion at that point is meaningless.
Is Glorious Heat/Spark overpowered? I personally think it's a waste of a feat for the amount of gp savings that it would provide. All it really provides is an elimination of bookkeeping that eat table time. Any healer that I run will probably simply buy wands, and make take the Craft Wand item creation feat. That opens up more room for gp economy than the Glorious Heat/Spark combination. (Besides the fact that the cleric has to dedicate one of his lowly 4 orison spots to power the combo.)
Paizo staff says they are not issuing errata, but are houseruling the feat for their own organized play campaign. Fine and dandy for them. They are the GM of that campaign.
Just to be clear, it was said that this was something that they would errata. However, the standing policy for Paizo is that Errata is only issued when a book is reprinted. Thus the "houserule", as you call it, for PFS is the best that they can do for now.
Paizo staff says they are not issuing errata, but are houseruling the feat for their own organized play campaign. Fine and dandy for them. They are the GM of that campaign.Just to be clear, it was said that this was something that they would errata. However, the standing policy for Paizo is that Errata is only issued when a book is reprinted. Thus the "houserule", as you call it, for PFS is the best that they can do for now.
Actual Quote:
Since we only publish errata when we reprint a book, a forum clarification will have to suffice on this issue.
Were we to reprint the book, we would change the Glorious Heat feat to grant the fire spell's spell level in healing instead of character level. This keeps unlimited use orisons from being spammed, and 1st level spells from being abused at higher levels.
This clarification will appear in the July update to the Pathfinder Society Additional Resources document.
So the upshot is: If they were to issue an errata for this publication, this feat would be in that errata. But they won't issue errata because their policy is to not errata anything that is not undergoing reprint.
But since all of this is actually not happening, there is no errata.
Again. The feat is what it is. Nobody at Paizo has stepped up and said that they wrote the feat and that they wrote it either how they intended, or that they miswrote it. So what we have is other people at Paizo saying that the feat "slipped through" as though one just slides text into their publications without any editing process.
Anyway.
Probably about the end of any useful discussion on this thread. Bout time someone simply axed the thread.
|
|
Paizo staff says they are not issuing errata, but are houseruling the feat for their own organized play campaign. Fine and dandy for them. They are the GM of that campaign.
While I personally am one of the people who fall into the camp that this combination is a loophole, to use your law analogy, which needs to be amended, I only really have two disputes with what you have said.
In the above quote you mentioned that Paizo simply says they are not issuing errata for this. I think its a bit of a mis-statement. What I believe was said is that this is an issue that would be errata were that book to receive errata. This is unlikely since errata is only released when a reprint is done and most of the side books never get a reprint, but I do think it is an important distinction. Due to the combination, this is acknowledge to be errata worthy, whether or not it comes out.
Second is that much of your argument hinges on how you play your game and talk of Paizo's ruling only applying to PFS. That is exactly the case and was the basis of the entire argument, the OP was asking if this combination was PFS legal and the staff answered that it shouldn't be and that will be spelled out in the next update for the organized play rules.
However, I've never seen any staffer here implying that any ruling was absolute for a home game. If you want to use that combination or feel it is too weak and want to have a feat make CLW at will or anything else in your home game I suspect that any one of the devs would tell you to go for it as long as it is fun for you and your players. The OP asked a question, received opinions from players and devs and because it was based on PFS a clear ruling was given.
Feel free to ignore the devs advice and intentions in your home game, but there is no need to be hostile or argue that because a rule combo slipped through it is now sacred text and cannot be mistaken.
|
|
That is exactly the case and was the basis of the entire argument, the OP was asking if this combination was PFS legal and the staff answered that it shouldn't be and that will be spelled out in the next update for the organized play rules.
That's not the case. The PFS part was included after people declared that this feat was exclusive to clerics of Sarenrae (which obviously wasn't the case).
However, I've never seen any staffer here implying that any ruling was absolute for a home game. If you want to use that combination or feel it is too weak and want to have a feat make CLW at will or anything else in your home game I suspect that any one of the devs would tell you to go for it as long as it is fun for you and your players.
... and in fact a Paizo staff member has said exactly this, in this very thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the above quote you mentioned that Paizo simply says they are not issuing errata for this. I think its a bit of a mis-statement. What I believe was said is that this is an issue that would be errata were that book to receive errata. This is unlikely since errata is only released when a reprint is done and most of the side books never get a reprint, but I do think it is an important distinction.
This is probably the crux of most of the issue that I have with Paizo over this and other poorly designed, poorly developed, poorly edited, rules that seem to "slip through" with increasing frequency.
The idea that they are only supporting their products that are popular enough to drive a reprint seems (irresponsible?)(callous?)(stupid?) on its face. Either a company supports their product, or they do not. If you purchased a piece of software and found a persistent error or security bug or other issue and the company said that they would only fix that bug when they went to do another run of dvd-roms, and since they had made a large enough pressing, the likelihood was small that they would ever fix that bug, they would lose reputation quickly. What makes printed paper different, in that Paizo can simply abandon product as soon as it is published?
I have worked in the software world, both in mass produced consumer product, and custom designed software, and I know for a fact that no customer would ever accept that type of answer when confronted with a bug. Does it take development time to fix bugs? Fer sure. And every time you find one, you look at whether that bug could have/should have been found prior to publishing. Did testing fail? Did a late change that circumvented QC cause the bug to come out? Were QC procedures insufficient? Doesn't matter. You still fix the bugs.
I've seen the argument on this board that "the rules are free, what you are paying for is the pretty pictures and nice paper, so don't complain when someone has an error in something that is being given to you for free." Well, even that argument falls down when compared to the world of software. Ubuntu Linux is free. And every time someone finds a security hole or software bug or interaction that causes unwanted effects, they release a patch. In fact they have recommended security patches and feature patches and new version patches for every piece of software that you've ever installed on that machine. Why? Because a bug is a bug is a bug. Either you support your product, or you don't.
What particularly frustrates me is the fact that I seem to be one of a very very small minority that thinks that errors should be fixed. As if quality is measured by the pretty pictures, and not by the devotion to produce well written, well developed, and well edited product that the publisher stands behind today and tomorrow.
Hallelujah! Holy s+*%! Where's the Tylenol?
Fixing errors is not free. issuing errata costs time and money. Yes, it should be done, or at least 'officially patched' online. However, it comes down to spending money to fix a small problem people can patch over, or fixing money to make money.
Businessmen who like to stay in business and keep their people employed go with the latter.
As for the example above, note that a fire spell of 0 level, tossed out by a level 10 caster, is healing 5 hp/rd for the cost of a feat...and at RANGE, no less. With unlimited healing, resource management takes on a completely different tone, especially for melees where it is their main scarce resource. The only attrition becomes for the spellcasters, and the PC's will always enter every fight with full hit points.
It's a major game changer. Sure, it may be a fun change, and even thematic. But if that's so much fun, why don't you just spend a feat that allows a Paladin to heal a number of HP equal to her Lay on Hands burstin dice (ditto other clerics), essentially replicating the same thing for all characters? 1 to 9 hp/rd for all divine healers for a feat...which is exactly what this represents.
Unlimited healing is valuable, which is why it is priced so high, and why you have to burn resources to stay healthy. If you like to video game where healing is really fast, different play style, less realism, more action.
It's also a "Wolvering" style game, where you play where you can afford to get hit because you know there's ALWAYS healing available.
===Aelryinth
|
|
Fixing errors is not free. issuing errata costs time and money. Yes, it should be done, or at least 'officially patched' online. However, it comes down to spending money to fix a small problem people can patch over, or fixing money to make money.
Businessmen who like to stay in business and keep their people employed go with the latter.
As for the example above, note that a fire spell of 0 level, tossed out by a level 10 caster, is healing 5 hp/rd for the cost of a feat...and at RANGE, no less. With unlimited healing, resource management takes on a completely different tone, especially for melees where it is their main scarce resource. The only attrition becomes for the spellcasters, and the PC's will always enter every fight with full hit points.
It's a major game changer. Sure, it may be a fun change, and even thematic. But if that's so much fun, why don't you just spend a feat that allows a Paladin to heal a number of HP equal to her Lay on Hands burstin dice (ditto other clerics), essentially replicating the same thing for all characters? 1 to 9 hp/rd for all divine healers for a feat...which is exactly what this represents.
Unlimited healing is valuable, which is why it is priced so high, and why you have to burn resources to stay healthy. If you like to video game where healing is really fast, different play style, less realism, more action.
It's also a "Wolvering" style game, where you play where you can afford to get hit because you know there's ALWAYS healing available.
===Aelryinth
So then I assume that wand of Cure Light Wounds or Infernal Healing is equally a game changer, as they also provide virtually unlimited out-of-combat healing - which is what we're really talking about. At level 5+, 2-5 hp for one character in a round is not going to keep the fighter or the rogue from dying to the BBEG. It's going to help him mop up later so that the 15 minute work day isn't the standard by which adventures are set.
Again. It's a game balance opinion issue. Obviously somebody at Paizo felt that this was balanced when it went out the door. And now others at Paizo are disagreeing.
As I've stated in the thread, even if available, I would not take this feat/spell combination, as Craft Wand is probably a much more powerful feat at that level, and through the rest of the character's career. And it reduces cost of the Wand of CLW down to only 375gp, which at level 5+ soon becomes a trivial expense. And it opens up every other wand to cheap exploitation. Ant Haul, Protection from Evil, Unseen Servant, Lesser Restoration all become "Hey, reach into the haversack and grab desired wand as a move action. Command word out appropriate level 1 spell. Lather, rinse, repeat".
Re: your argument that "Businessmen who want to stay employed...", yep. That's why no company in the world has a warranty against defects. If you buy a new car and the engine has problems, well it's your problem, not Ford's. Oh. "Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.".
Shoddy work is shoddy work. Instead of simply pressing on to release more shoddy work, repairs are often necessary.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In this case, my reading is pretty flawless.
Out of context, I'm not sure which reading you refer. But english is such an interesting language, I suspect it is hard to have a flawless reading for every person. For this reason alone, things like FAQ are more important than Errata. You may not be able to have a sentence that everyone reads correctly, but you can have an FAQ that explains by example how to implement the rule.
not talking about stupid wild interpretations. We're talking about taking the words at face value.
See, I think we are talking wild interpretations.
"Is the power level of this feat more than what the developers intended?"
Dev answers ... a non-responsive answer, that effectively stops any useful discussion
judges make an opinion based on the best interpretation of what was intended at the time the law was published.
Boon Companion. As written, it is wildly overpowered
Is Glorious Heat/Spark overpowered? I personally think it's a waste of a feat for the amount of gp savings that it would provide.
It is overpowered using your interpretation.
The dev gave a responsive answer, that 0 level spells (cantrips/orisons) wouldn't be a valid use of the feat. The feat was designed (intended) to be used with an expended spell slot, and cantrips/orisons don't expend.
Yet you say you care about intent, but you ignore intent?
Boon Companion, isn't wildly overpowered. It is wildly overinterpreted. People seem to think that it provides any benefit to single classed Druids/Rangers and it doesn't. A 10th level Ranger AC with B.C. has the same stats as a 10th level Ranger without B.C.
One feat that grants you better than 90,000 gp in value is overpowered. It is materially better than Ring of Regeneration.
Obviously somebody at Paizo felt that this was balanced when it went out the door. And now others at Paizo are disagreeing.
I think this is a big assumption that people who like this loophole are clinging to. Heck, I may even be guilty of doing this myself (see threads regarding 1.5xSTR damage with double weapons while TWF).
I think that it's far more likely that people forgot (or forgot to check) that Spark has the [fire] descriptor. It's a new spell in the APG. It may even be that this feat was written and approved before the APG went to print. If it weren't for the Spark spell, this wouldn't be an issue. I don't think that there is any conspiracy or difference of philosophy going on behind closed doors at Paizo. They forgot about Spark and/or it's [fire] descriptor, simple as that. Let's move on.
Probably the easiest house rule is to change the feat to require that you expend a memorized spell to gain the benefits.
I hope someone has mentioned this already (didn't read all 122 posts).
So then I assume that wand of Cure Light Wounds or Infernal Healing is equally a game changer, as they also provide virtually unlimited out-of-combat healing - which is what we're really talking about. At level 5+, 2-5 hp for one character in a round is not going to keep the fighter or the rogue from dying to the BBEG. It's going to help him mop up later so that the 15 minute work day isn't the standard by which adventures are set.
Again. It's a game balance opinion...
Wands of CLW and Infernal Healing cost money and time. At higher levels, one character can go through a CLW wand in a day. It only heals 250ish hit points. That's resource consumption.
At those same levels, this trick can do up to 10 hp a round and consume no resources at all.
If you're into video games and insta-healing to get one with it, that's fine. But that's a different animal then PF is meant to convey. Do your wand of infernal healing (much less expensive and far slower, and where are you getting the devil blood?) or your CLW wand, and watch just how fast those go bye-bye at higher levels.
==Aelryinth
These sorts of threads always make my day. A rule gap or exploit is exposed that seems to me and many others to be so obviously against RAI that it's hardly worth even discussing since a house rule to fix it would be immediately applied in games run by GMs like me.
And then it turns into a huge debate about how the exploit or rule gap is perfectly reasonable and that GMs like me are cramping the style of players by trying to "read the minds" of developers when the RAW is perfectly clear.
Then a dev posts "Oops, our mistake, clearly that's not what was intended. We'll fix it asap."
And yet the debate rages on.
I really mean it. These things just tickle my funny bone...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These sorts of threads always make my day. A rule gap or exploit is exposed that seems to me and many others to be so obviously against RAI that it's hardly worth even discussing since a house rule to fix it would be immediately applied in games run by GMs like me.
And then it turns into a huge debate about how the exploit or rule gap is perfectly reasonable and that GMs like me are cramping the style of players by trying to "read the minds" of developers when the RAW is perfectly clear.
Then a dev posts "Oops, our mistake, clearly that's not what was intended. We'll fix it asap."
And yet the debate rages on.
I really mean it. These things just tickle my funny bone...
Oh, this sort of stuff goes on all the time. I still remember when I was writing MAGE rules and a player in my game said, "But who can say for certain what the designer meant when he wrote this particular line?" Me: "Well, in the case of that particular line, I wrote that one, so I think I know what I meant." Player (doggedly): "But couldn't it also be interpreted this other way?" Me: "Not in my game it couldn't."
|
|
The software world is a really poor analogy to bring up in regards to changes in rules / feats / etc in more ways than I can count. But let's look at it from a business perspective. As a software designer, you are more connected to your user base because after fixing things, you can push an update that (if connected to the Internet) everyone can download and fix their programs. And sometimes those bugs can be crippling to a program and / or its security, so necessity dictates that fixes have to be pushed out with much haste.
Pathfinder is a game, and a pen and paper game at that. I would say the majority of folks do not buy directly for Paizo, and I don't know how many folks buy their PDFs (although they are really cheap so it's a VERY good deal). Regardless, there is not a network that you can push updates to rules that will get to the majority of players. There are a number of times that I've corrected someone who has a Core rulebook, but it was an earlier print and thus didn't know about the errata.
Releasing updated material is also very expensive for Paizo vs. being a software developer. Software companies worry about cost, but they have economies of scale on their side, so per unit cost of updating a program is really cheap. This is not the case for Paizo, and doubly so for the small splatbooks. Paizo only updates the hardcover books because they are their mainstay in terms of revenue. Go to any game day and see how many folks have a hardcover vs. how many have the smaller splats. You'll see a remarkable difference. Paizo can make another run of their larger books because they know the demand is going to be there to buy them. That is not the case with something like Faiths of Purity.
And not to mention, the more material that gets released, the more problems you'll run into. This isn't so much due to poor editing as it is to the fact that RPG gamers will always find the most creative / useful / cheese / etc. to do something in the game. You can't expect for Paizo to catch EVERYTHING, and the community does a good job of alerting the designers (such as this thread). But if don't like Jason's suggestion, then don't follow it. But I think it's terrible for folks to bash Paizo and accuse them of poor writing / editing / blah blah blah. They care about their customers and come into threads to discuss issues about the game! Where else are you going to find that on the level that Paizo does in this industry? I doubt there's another place like this.
And lastly, if you want more insight on why this feat will get a change if it is ever re-released, listen to the PaizoCon 2011 Seminar 1 - RPG Design Crafting Rules That Work. Jason Buhlman, James Jacobs, and Stephen Radney-McFarland go into great detail about their design process and lay out of placing values on feats, spells, items, classes, etc. You'll also understand why an amulet of infernal healing shouldn't follow the skeleton rules for creating new magic items.
TL;DR - Paizo is awesome and I love the fact they take time out of their busy lives to foster discussion about a wide variety of topics. People need to learn how to appreciate! :)
|
|
I have to say that I prefered the way WotC handeld errata in 3.5. At least they didn't limit errata to reprints (they even released 3.5 errata when the game was no longer supported, although that was some errata long overdue).
There are many things for which I prefer Paizo, like the structure of their books or the way they handle the OGL, but their editing and handling of mistakes aren't among those.
I have to say that I prefered the way WotC handeld errata in 3.5. At least they didn't limit errata to reprints (they even released 3.5 errata when the game was no longer supported, although that was some errata long overdue).
There are many things for which I prefer Paizo, like the structure of their books or the way they handle the OGL, but their editing and handling of mistakes aren't among those.
And I for one prefer Paizo's in-the-trenches approach. "Official" errata may be hard to come by, but at least Paizo staff is actually available and willing to discuss. The fact that we've seen James and others offer opinions, and then have them swayed by those of us on the boards is a great thing. Add resources like d20pfsrd.com to the mix and you're good to go.
I have to say that I prefered the way WotC handeld errata in 3.5. At least they didn't limit errata to reprints (they even released 3.5 errata when the game was no longer supported, although that was some errata long overdue).
There are many things for which I prefer Paizo, like the structure of their books or the way they handle the OGL, but their editing and handling of mistakes aren't among those.
In that context I preffered the way TSR did it. When one could write sage advice and have Skip Williams write a personal response, which latter could be printed in Dragon Magazine for public reference.
But that was then and if we compare the present Paizo MO to WotC's in the late half of the 3.5 era, where they would have a panel of more or less capable people writing contradictory rulings left and wright, I choose Paizo.
I am tempted to get into how WotC handle their community since they started 4E, but I'd better not.
And I for one prefer Paizo's in-the-trenches approach. "Official" errata may be hard to come by, but at least Paizo staff is actually available and willing to discuss. The fact that we've seen James and others offer opinions, and then have them swayed by those of us on the boards is a great thing. Add resources like d20pfsrd.com to the mix and you're good to go.I have to say that I prefered the way WotC handeld errata in 3.5. At least they didn't limit errata to reprints (they even released 3.5 errata when the game was no longer supported, although that was some errata long overdue).
There are many things for which I prefer Paizo, like the structure of their books or the way they handle the OGL, but their editing and handling of mistakes aren't among those.
There's no reason that they can't do both. Stay on the forums, jumping in with opinions as they currently are, but making a note of each issue. Once a month, get everyone relevant together for an hour, and just plow through as many of those issues as possible in that hour, then have someone throw the decisions into a PDF or on a webpage and put it online. Then, when a book goes to print, there's already a ready-made list of changes to make to it. It does mean time spent on this rather than other things, but some of that would be recouped from whatever the current errata process is when a book is republished.
As a side note to some of the other disagreements in this thread...
When pricing magic items (such as those that grant continuous or endless healing effects), remember that the formulas in the book are a guideline only (Core Rulebook, page 549, last paragraph) and that a GM should always compare an item against other similar items.
In this case, I suggest looking at the ring of regeneration which provides continuous healing. It costs 90,000 gp. I get why GMs handwave healing for story considerations, but from a purely rules perspective, such an ability is quite valuable.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingYou neglect to mention that ring of regen duplicates regeneration, a 7th level spell. Including halting bleed damage and restoring lost body parts.
As a 7th level spell that converts an instantaneous effect into a continuous effect the price is much more in line with the item creation guidelines.
You are using as an example of how valuable healing is by pointing to an item duplicating a much higher spell. Not really a good comparison.
Edit: a much better example might be the pearly white spindle ioun stone at 20k for 1 hp/10 minutes. Except, given the additional capabilities of ioun stones, thats even not directly on point.
The ioun stone would not be a good comparison, since it is limited in time by how much it can heal, while unlimited healing resource allows you to heal between encounters with just a short rest, in 10 minutes time it is possible to heal 10 people of 55 hp worth of damage, the ring of regeneration is a better comparison even if it is just 60 hp on a single person, though it might be a bit more useful in combat, following wealth by level guidelines with the assumption that the most expesniev item someone has is up to half his wealth you will end up at a very high level of play where such an item can possibly be considered 'common place' in adventuring parties.
|
"That ally heals a number of hit points equal to the level of the spell cast and gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls until the end of its next turn (see Editor's Note at right.)"
With Spark:
Zer0 healing but +1 morale bonus on attack rolls. And must used on fine unattended object (no dmg tho).
Which is worse than Guidance.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/guidance
So, meh.
The ring of regeneration becomes a lot more useful if you also take Fast Healer and have a decent con bonus, I might add.
Interesting.
The ring of regeneration becomes a lot more useful if you also take Fast Healer and have a decent con bonus, I might add.Interesting.
Still seems pretty weak though. Even with a 30 con (and that's a lot!) you're looking at 6 hp per round, which is pretty neglible at the level its feasible.
The actual wording of Glorious Heat in Inner Sea Gods.
Glorious Heat
When you cast divine fire spells, their heat empowers nearby allies.
Prerequisites: Ability to cast divine spells, caster level 5th, worshiper of Sarenrae.
Benefit: Whenever you cast a divine spell with the fire descriptor, choose a single ally within 30 feet that you can see. That ally heals a number of hit points equal to half level and gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls until the end of its next turn.
Please note the portions I have emboldened & italicized. While it is not available to just anyone, it does look as though a Cleric of Sarenrae with Spark can pretty much improve on the 3.5 Cure Minor Wounds, once (s)he is fifth level or higher...
So every cleric that is healing focused will now make sure to worship Sarenrae and get unlimited healing. I can't believe even after they realized this needed to be reworded the first time, they didn't fix it before it went to print in ISG.
|
|
So every cleric that is healing focused will now make sure to worship Sarenrae and get unlimited healing. I can't believe even after they realized this needed to be reworded the first time, they didn't fix it before it went to print in ISG.
They kept the same restriction in the Additional resources document for Inner Sea Gods: "Glorious Heat grants a number of points of healing equal to the spell level, not the caster level (ie. flame strike grants 5 points, while spark grants 0)".
So every cleric that is healing focused will now make sure to worship Sarenrae and get unlimited healing. I can't believe even after they realized this needed to be reworded the first time, they didn't fix it before it went to print in ISG.They kept the same restriction in the Additional resources document for Inner Sea Gods: "Glorious Heat grants a number of points of healing equal to the spell level, not the caster level (ie. flame strike grants 5 points, while spark grants 0)".
Great, that doesn't change the fact that in the actual pages of the book the Glorious Heat feat says half your level in hit points. Also, the feat doesn't say that you have to keep taking divine caster levels. It just says you need the ability to cast divine spells, and be worshiper of Sarenrae. You could take one level of cleric, and then 4 levels in sorcerer and still be able to abuse this feat. This is something that EVERY table is going to have to houserule according to the predetermined fix. If that's the case, why not just fix it before printing?
Just to clarify, when you say they kept the restrictions in additional resources, you mean the section that only applies to society play, not the pathfinder rules, correct?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
recipient is receiving magical healing. That the number is zero
Do you receive a +0 morale bonus to fortitude saves? If so, does the courageous weapon then increase that bonus to +1?
In most games I'm familiar, when you gain +0 of something, you don't gain anything.
If a source would deal 0 damage, it does not deal damage at all. That means abilities that trigger on damage being dealt won't trigger. It also means that replacement effects that would increase the damage dealt by that source, or would have that source deal that damage to a different object or player, have no event to replace, so they have no effect.
So the whole concept of "I'm providing 0 healing" so I get something that triggers off healing is a full stop no go.
Just to clarify, when you say they kept the restrictions in additional resources, you mean the section that only applies to society play, not the pathfinder rules, correct?
Yes, that's correct. The additional resources for society is only for society play.
Supposing the change is to keep people from having infinite castings of cure minor wound, its actually sort of awkward because they expect you to heal between combats anyway.