Again you're failing to acknowledge that there is a responsibility on the part of the game's designers to account for these kinds of changes.I submit that in a world where water is a limitless resource there would be no deserts at all. Just have your acolytes work in shifts watering everything infinitely. And why not? THERE IS NO LIMIT.
The writers made a world inherently inconsistent with its own inner workings created by the developers.
So, I'll say again, do we think that Pathfinder represents a setting where people have adapted to the facts that illusions have less value and water is not a resource?
What is your assertion that it isn't? A 20th level Wizard can only create enough water for 80 people a day. That's what? A hamlet, if you factor in animals? How many hamlets have 20th level Wizards? Why would illusions have less value? You people are pretending that adventurers are both unique and not unique. Those are mutually exclusive assignments. Detect Magic doesn't make Illusion less valuable - you are reading the spell wrong. Illusion is inherently less valuable because it isn't real. An Illusory Fireball does a fraction of the damage of a real one - even if you believe it is real. An illusory wall of stone can't really block your path.
Why touch? Why not 5'? Touch is patently absurd. You touch something poisoned. You die. You touch something cursed. You die. You touch a trap. You set it off and die. Touch is not less absurd than a 200' radius emanation from the caster.
I'm not clear on why (a) powerful threats all need to be countered by at-will cantrips, and (b) none of the threats in your game seem to allow saving throws or means of detection other than the detect magic catrip.
Why touch? Why not 5'? Touch is patently absurd. You touch something poisoned. You die. You touch something cursed. You die. You touch a trap. You set it off and die. Touch is not less absurd than a 200' radius emanation from the caster.I'm not clear on why (a) powerful threats all need to be countered by at-will cantrips, and (b) none of the threats in your game seem to allow saving throws or means of detection other than the detect magic catrip.
I'm not clear why you think being able to detect magical auras in a single adjacent square is immensely more powerful than having to touch something magic to know its magic.
PS. Your change to Detect Magic allows people to inherently find Illusion magics. By touching it, you are interacting with it and automatically making the saving throw. Good job making a fix that ACTUALLY does what you are claiming made the original too powerful.
PS. Your change to Detect Magic allows people to inherently find Illusion magics. By touching it, you are interacting with it and automatically making the saving throw. Good job making a fix that ACTUALLY does what you are claiming made the original too powerful.
I'm not claiming that at all. I personally dislike the auto-detecting magic traps, because I want to let rogues keep as much of their schtick as possible without getting edged out by the casters. Robert Brambley was discussing illusions. I am not he.
PS. Your change to Detect Magic allows people to inherently find Illusion magics. By touching it, you are interacting with it and automatically making the saving throw. Good job making a fix that ACTUALLY does what you are claiming made the original too powerful.I'm not claiming that at all. I personally dislike the auto-detecting magic traps, because I want to let rogues keep as much of their schtick as possible without getting edged out by the casters. Robert Brambley was discussing illusions. I am not he.
PPS. ANYONE can detect magic traps, only classes with Trapfinding, or Trapfinding-like abilities, can DISABLE magic traps. Or you know, someone can just dispel the magic.
And I'm pretty sure someone else whining about illusions was on the range: touch bandwagon.
|
So how do you handle linger auras? That's a point no one who makes changes to detect magic seem willing to answer.Only because it hasn't been asked. And I'd say that just because a lingering aura isn't tangible doesn't mean you can't stick your hand where it was. Touch the floor and detect the lingering aura of the imprisonment spell that used to be active at that location.
Actually, Sunshadow has a point on this one.
If you can't 'see' the aura until you cast Detect Magic, and you can't cast Detect Magic until you're "touching" said aura....(in the even DM is limited to touch), you would be swatting at imaginary bugs to try to hit a lingering magic aura that you can't detect or see until you touch it while casting the spell.
That creates a problem if/when you reduce the spell to touch.
In my campaigns, I've limited DM to (as I've said) Line of Sight only (not through doors, walls, chests etc), and illusions are not detected (assumed to be already fooled by Illusion) unless a caster level check is made.
Thus I have never had to encounter the lingering aura issue of touch as Sunshadow inferred.
Robert
Permamamcy arcane sight on yourself and make the GM's head explode.
I just realized this thusly:
20th level wizard has somewhere in the realm of 900,000gp at his disposal.
He could just pay a group of artisans to just build a wall with a secret door in it.
Then he casts magic aura on a red brick in the wall to make it ring as illusion magic. Illusory wall.
Then he puts a CR 13 trap on his magic aura'd wall, trigger touch, that drops a maximized fireball right on the aura.
That's like 30,000 gold.
The wizard is failing because you guys are having him play like he's level three. If you treat the level 20 wizard like a level 20 wizard, no, detect magic is not going to defeat him.
|
|
I just realized this thusly:
20th level wizard has somewhere in the realm of 900,000gp at his disposal.
He could just pay a group of artisans to just build a wall with a secret door in it.
Then he casts magic aura on a red brick in the wall to make it ring as illusion magic. Illusory wall.
Then he puts a CR 13 trap on his magic aura'd wall, trigger touch, that drops a maximized fireball right on the aura.
That's like 30,000 gold.
The wizard is failing because you guys are having him play like he's level three. If you treat the level 20 wizard like a level 20 wizard, no, detect magic is not going to defeat him.
Or he just sets detect magic being cast as the trigger for the explosive runes...
If you can't 'see' the aura until you cast Detect Magic, and you can't cast Detect Magic until you're "touching" said aura....(in the even DM is limited to touch), you would be swatting at imaginary bugs to try to hit a lingering magic aura that you can't detect or see until you touch it while casting the spell.
See, the thing I'm trying to keep in mind is that arcane sight (a 3rd level spell) still exists and works at range. I somehow can't bring myself to the point of view that a 0-level spell is supposed to replace a 3rd level spell.
If you can't 'see' the aura until you cast Detect Magic, and you can't cast Detect Magic until you're "touching" said aura....(in the even DM is limited to touch), you would be swatting at imaginary bugs to try to hit a lingering magic aura that you can't detect or see until you touch it while casting the spell.See, the thing I'm trying to keep in mind is that arcane sight (a 3rd level spell) still exists and works at range. I somehow can't bring myself to the point of view that a 0-level spell is supposed to replace a 3rd level spell.
Arcane Sight. Something that lets you PHYSICALLY SEE arcane auras and know their schools just by looking at them - no concentration. Oh, and the ability to identify all creatures in range with spell abilities and the exact nature of their spell abilities with a single round of concentration. Yeah, totally the same as Detect Magic.
I need an at-will spell that makes certain posters undetectable to me. Any suggestions?
If you can't 'see' the aura until you cast Detect Magic, and you can't cast Detect Magic until you're "touching" said aura....(in the even DM is limited to touch), you would be swatting at imaginary bugs to try to hit a lingering magic aura that you can't detect or see until you touch it while casting the spell.See, the thing I'm trying to keep in mind is that arcane sight (a 3rd level spell) still exists and works at range. I somehow can't bring myself to the point of view that a 0-level spell is supposed to replace a 3rd level spell.
Arcane Sight works without concentration, requires no time (as opposed to three rounds), reaches twice as far, is line of sight instead of a cone, and also allows you to detect whether or not a creature has spell-casting capability, the strength of that spellcasting ability (their current highest level spell), and whether it's arcane or divine.
Comparing the reverse...
Detect Magic requires concentration, takes three rounds to learn all the information, has half the distance, is a cone instead of line of sight, and doesn't let you know anything about anyone else's spellcasting capabilities.
The cantrip doesn't replace the third level spell at all. It's clearly inferior in every way. The third level spell not only has twice the range and speed and doesn't require any action to continue using, but also provides three incredibly vital pieces of information that the cantrip lacks. I'd say that's about right for a three-spell-level difference. There's no question which one is better, by far. And if people have problems with detect magic, why not with arcane sight? It, too, can be made permanent. Greater arcane sight, while not able to be made permanent, is worse, as it automatically identifies active magical effects on people and objects (although still not in areas).
EDIT: ninja'd by both Cartigan and Kirth...
I need an at-will spell that makes certain posters undetectable to me. Any suggestions?
Sorry, you'll have to research that one yourself (after getting permission from your GM). You could try blinding yourself, though!
EDIT AGAIN: that sounds terrible. I'm sorry, I really don't mean it the way it looks! I meant with the spell! Please do not actually blind yourself.
Detect Magic requires concentration, takes three rounds to learn all the information, has half the distance, is a cone instead of line of sight, and doesn't let you know anything about anyone else's spellcasting capabilities.
And doesn't even give you all the information either, just a small snippet, and even that requires a successful knowledge roll.
EDIT AGAIN: that sounds terrible. I'm sorry, I really don't mean it the way it looks! I meant with the spell! Please do not actually blind yourself.
Unless you use Blindness/Deafness. However, that isn't a cantrip.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if people have problems with detect magic, why not with arcane sight?It's not spammable (unless you allow permanency)
Who needs it to be spammable? It still lasts minutes per level and you don't have to spend any rounds focusing on stuff.
and it's something that isn't accessible at low level.
Level 5?
My horizon in the system is mostly E6
Which is not how the game is balanced nor is it even the majority of the game as it is designed so your argument inherently makes itself irrelevant.
And if people have problems with detect magic, why not with arcane sight?It's not spammable (unless you allow permanency) and it's something that isn't accessible at low level.
My horizon in the system is mostly E6, so Arcane Sight is perfect as a kind of capstone ability of spellcasters. You've reached the heights of human-ish scale power and now you can now perceive the world of magic as it is.
For myself, what I'm trying to do is use the system to achieve cinematic flow. If at the end of a session the emergent story resembled more how a typical TV show or movie flows, then success! If it looks more like a Giants in the Playground series of strips, then fail!
A big part of how things can move away from cinematic moments is through gamist meta-game information. If the GM can't surprise characters the way any novelist or scriptwriter can, due to narrative wreaking abilities, then they've got to be tweaked so that players don't have a top down view of situations and complications.
I don't care if the game encourages people to dive deep into gamist lalaland, I'll just take out my GM skills and design tools, fire up the furnace, and begin pounding things into something that encourages drama and simulation.
If you're looking for that level of narration, PF may not be the best base to start from. It definitely leans toward the simulation side of things, and accepting that is the first thing you have to do to successfully use the system, unless, like Kirth, you are prepared to completely rewrite over 50% of it, at which point, 4E may be as good or better for the base system since it heavily emphasizes narration. You simply aren't going to get the feel that an author or screenwriter can achieve with 3.x/PF; it's not designed that way.
It's not spammable (unless you allow permanency) and it's something that isn't accessible at low level.
I see your point, but permanency is allowed by RAW - 3.0 and 3.5 did to, IIRC.
My horizon in the system is mostly E6, so Arcane Sight is perfect as a kind of capstone ability of spellcasters. You've reached the heights of human-ish scale power and now you can now perceive the world of magic as it is.
For myself, what I'm trying to do is use the system to achieve cinematic flow. If at the end of a session the emergent story resembled more how a typical TV show or movie flows, then success! If it looks more like a Giants in the Playground series of strips, then fail!
Again, I see your point, but that's not quite the game as intended. You may certainly do that in your own games... but really, it's not meant to be like a TV Show or Movie. It's meant to be a collaborative improvisational story-crafting game experience, not a passive story-consuming one. I hate to go back, but looking at it's origins - war gaming - role playing was the "new" element... Gygax wasn't terribly fond of too much of it! That said, individual groups tastes vary...
A big part of how things can move away from cinematic moments is through gamist meta-game information. If the GM can't surprise characters the way any novelist or scriptwriter can, due to narrative wreaking abilities, then they've got to be tweaked so that players don't have a top down view of situations and complications.
... which means I fundamentally disagree with you here. I mean, to me, this kind of game sounds awful, both as a GM and as a player. I love telling stories, I love writing them too, but I also enjoy gaming experiences with real people. If I (as a player) feel the GM is just making me go through his/her script... I feel very cheated and frustrated, as I'm not able to actually do anything and it's more work with less fulfillment than watching or reading. On the other hand, as a GM, if I just run a story only (which I've done in the past) I've been able to see my players' eyes glaze over with boredom. It's a give-and-take - they make the story just as much as I do. I have an over-arching idea, we try and work together, but if something's going to go, it's going to be my stuff, unless - for fellow gamers' sakes it needs to be a particular player.
I don't care if the game encourages people to dive deep into gamist lalaland, I'll just take out my GM skills and design tools, fire up the furnace, and begin pounding things into something that encourages drama and simulation.
Again, I see your point, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. You fully answered my question on your part - your response and reasoning makes sense, I just wouldn't enjoy it personally, and it's not entirely what the game was made for. That said, so long as you and your people are having fun, that's the ultimate purpose of the game... and rule 0!
EDIT: NINJA'D BY CARTIGAN AND SUNSHADOW21
I over-all agree with you Sunshadow, however there are some things that you just can't do with 4E that Pathfinder/3.X can for RP purposes (and, in fact, vice-versa). But to reiterate... yeah 4E reduces less on out-of-combat narrative-rules (and placing a greater control of narrative to fall into DM hands) while Pathfinder focuses on rules for all elements (thus making it more simulationist than narrativist... are these even words?).
|
|
For myself, what I'm trying to do is use the system to achieve cinematic flow. If at the end of a session the emergent story resembled more how a typical TV show or movie flows, then success! If it looks more like a Giants in the Playground series of strips, then fail!
A big part of how things can move away from cinematic moments is through gamist meta-game information. If the GM can't surprise characters the way any novelist or scriptwriter can, due to narrative wreaking abilities, then they've got to be tweaked so that players don't have a top down view of situations and complications.
Is the problem with players (and how they might metagame) or with characters and how they use their quite usual (for their setting) abilities ?
PFRPG takes us to a world where many casters can easily detect and (a bit less easily) identify magic which has not been disguised. The GM just needs to take this reality of the world into account when he prepares and tells his story.
|
|
What I keep getting surprised by is the intensity of the "does not compute" fidelity to RAW. This specific thread is about how a GM is altering the RAW because he sees something wrong with the play experience. On one side of the spectrum is an answer of "he's violated RAW! He must bone up and conform!" and on the other end is "Rule Zero is all that is needed! Bend over player!"
I like playing by RAW as much as possible even though I believe that zero houserules is not really possible.
However my primary rule in the game is that all should have fun playing it. Here we have a GM who is altering the RAW because he sees something wrong with HIS OWN play experience. He obviously did not care about how his players were feeling.
If Rule Zero means that the GM has every right to be a jerk and ruin his players' experience of the game, then my answer is the basic principle of democracy aka voting with your feet. Once said GM has zero players around his table, maybe he will reconsider being a jerk.
BTW I agree with your conclusion : all players (including the GM) should sit down together and try to find a common solution.
What I keep getting surprised by is the intensity of the "does not compute" fidelity to RAW. This specific thread is about how a GM is altering the RAW because he sees something wrong with the play experience.
Actually this thread is about a GM who saw Detect Magic being used intelligently and logically and decided to start springing houserules on his players to nerf it. While this thread has devolved into the "play by the rules" vs the "I'm rewriting the game" debate, the OP is about a GM being a dick.
|
|
I over-all agree with you Sunshadow, however there are some things that you just can't do with 4E that Pathfinder/3.X can for RP purposes (and, in fact, vice-versa). But to reiterate... yeah 4E reduces less on out-of-combat narrative-rules (and placing a greater control of narrative to fall into DM hands) while Pathfinder focuses on rules for all elements (thus making it more simulationist than narrativist... are these even words?).
I believe that 3rd edition and PF upgrade are not designed specifically to involve less story/roleplaying etc.
I believe it was designed so that players who are not capable or comfortable in being able to do that type of game have a cold hard set of rules to rely on to drive the game so that players dont have to rely on out-of-the-box ad libbing w/ their spot-rules etc - which was so rampant in previous editions.
For a company (Paizo) that IMO is most renowned for creating the most elaborate and fantastic stories, adventures, setting, fluff, flavor and creativity, of any other RPG publishing company, I find it hard to swallow that they would feel the game isn't so compatible with their creativity.
Their rules are only ancillary IMO to their great writing and stories, their adventure paths are still their best sellers.
Yes 3rd edition and PF rules are certainly prone to bog down w/ rules - but it doesn't have to be played that way if you have players and DM who are comfortable in SWAGing many of the nit-picky nuances. The rules are just as capable of being as a fall-back plan when you can't come up with an agreeable solution as they are capable of being the driving factor of the game. The former is more apt to be found amongst older and tenured gamers from previous editions (guilty).
Robert
|
|
The cantrip doesn't replace the third level spell at all. It's clearly inferior in every way. The third level spell not only has twice the range and speed and doesn't require any action to continue using, but also provides three incredibly vital pieces of information that the cantrip lacks. I'd say that's about right for a three-spell-level difference. There's no question which one is better, by far. And if people have problems with detect magic, why not with arcane sight? It, too, can be made permanent. Greater arcane sight, while not able to be made permanent, is worse, as it automatically identifies active magical effects on people and objects (although still not in areas)....
Good point, Tacticslion.
But to be fair, most of the contention with Detect Magic isn't with the spell itself - it's is only that the spell can be cast at will.
For those who have problems with this synergistic combo, it seems more pragmatic to re-work the spell slightly than to remove unlimited 0 level spell-casting.
That's what most of the solution discussion has been regarding.
Robert
|
|
Maybe this is just me showing my age, but I don't see the system as writ-in-stone social contract that has to be followed.
Perhaps, but i think my previous post illustrates that we're both residents of the same old folks home.
I'm 39 - been playing since I was 10 in Basic D&D and went on through all editions and a number of other RPG systems.
(heh, remember Star Frontiers?) :-)
The players at in my Kingmaker campaign are 45, 42, 37, 34, 29, 24, and 21. The first four have been playing through various editions as well, and they are definitely in our playing crowd, Mok. Even the 21 y.o. one played 2nd edition growing up, and he tries to avoid minis and rules jargon talk as much as possible. Together we're pretty comfortable and capable of letting the story drive the game and letting it drive the rules and not the reverse. There are 3 of the 7 who are more "gamist" than the rest, but no one really forces a style on the other - we find ways to coexist with our style. Regardless it's good to have so many long tenured roleplayers at the table.
Robert
If you can't 'see' the aura until you cast Detect Magic, and you can't cast Detect Magic until you're "touching" said aura....(in the even DM is limited to touch), you would be swatting at imaginary bugs to try to hit a lingering magic aura that you can't detect or see until you touch it while casting the spell.See, the thing I'm trying to keep in mind is that arcane sight (a 3rd level spell) still exists and works at range. I somehow can't bring myself to the point of view that a 0-level spell is supposed to replace a 3rd level spell.
Again, what about the divine caster? Why are wizards with arcane sight the masters of all magic, both arcane and divine, while divine casters can't even detect divine magic without standing right on top of it?
Again, what about the divine caster? Why are wizards with arcane sight the masters of all magic, both arcane and divine, while divine casters can't even detect divine magic without standing right on top of it?
The divine caster can planar ally someone to do it for him. Or not -- he/she has already got better BAB, hp, armor, and just as many if not more spells, so I don't feel too sorry for them.
What about the rogue? He's supposed to be the ace at detecting traps, but needs to hit DC 25 + spell level for a magic trap just to notice it, whereas the guy with a 0-level cantrip doesn't even need to roll. Yeah, he can take minor magic, but that's only 3/day rather than at will, and a talent is a much bigger expendeture, in terms of total class resources, than a spell slot.
|
One other huge hurdle I find to embracing the RAW is that out of all the settings I've seen over the years, Eberron is the closest to actually following the implications of the rules. Golarion is more like Greyhawk, just offered up a kitchen sink of different themes to play with, but it doesn't make any real effort of logically following out all the ways that a world would be shaped by how the metaphysics (that is, the RAW) ends up shaping the world.And so as a playing community we're still stuck in this hazy middle ground, where people approach the game expecting fantasy novel and movie emulation, but then discover this bizarre world that has social, spiritual and economic implications that aren't actually reflected in the fluff.
YES!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SOMEBODY GETS IT!!!
I've been trying to say exactly this for days now. Days.
I'd only add to this statement two points:
A) I believe the fluff is aimed at a 3.5-ish world. The PF changes either haven't been taken into account or we're abusing their intent. Either way there is a gap.
B) I believe that we should err on the side of compatibility. Different and unique is all good, but genre-breaking is definitely a limit we can agree upon. Where this specific case falls is up to interpretation.
Again, what about the divine caster? Why are wizards with arcane sight the masters of all magic, both arcane and divine, while divine casters can't even detect divine magic without standing right on top of it?The divine caster can planar ally someone to do it for him.
At 500 gp plus 100 gp per hit die? And 10 minutes to cast? I've never seen this spell cast in game because no one ever has that much gold they're just carrying around with them in a dungeon.
Or not -- he/she has already got better BAB, hp, armor, and just as many if not more spells, so I don't feel too sorry for them.
It's not a power thing, but a flavor thing. Why should a 5th-level wizard be more attuned to divine magic than a 15th-level cleric?
What about the rogue? He's supposed to be the ace at detecting traps, but needs to hit DC 25 + spell level for a magic trap just to notice it, whereas the guy with a 0-level cantrip doesn't even need to roll. Yeah, he can take minor magic, but that's only 3/day rather than at will, and a talent is a much bigger expendeture, in terms of total class resources, than a spell slot.
We play different games. None of my players have ever played a wizard or cast planar ally. On the other hand, by the time the rogue is facing magical traps, his Perception bonus is already well over +20.
|
|
There are plenty of limits; many people's proposals for create water would basically turn acolytes into slaves, not something that would fit most religions well, and assume more a great deal more acolytes than are actually available. Not to mention, it's pretty easy to kill the acolytes and break up anything built on the assumption that the acolytes will be there. Also, infighting between the acolytes and those who would use them would limit effectiveness of the strategy, as would the constant presence of outside enemies preventing the full deployment of said acolytes.
You've completely missed my point. I'm not asking whether or not enterprising GM's can imagine a counter to this strategy. Not at all. I'm saying, what if a church wanted their land to not be a desert? What's to stop them? And in such a world, why are there any deserts at all?
20th level wizards may be uncommon, but 1st level adepts probably aren't.
Actually this thread is about a GM who saw Detect Magic being used intelligently and logically and decided to start springing houserules on his players to nerf it. While this thread has devolved into the "play by the rules" vs the "I'm rewriting the game" debate, the OP is about a GM being a dick.I've moved onto the larger "devolved" portion of the thread. I completely agree that the GM handled things poorly.
But, I also empathize with the GM with his frustrations, and am just trying to offer up some observations and suggestions that he and his players might be able to agree to.
A big part of that is different expectations of what the play experience is supposed to be about. If you have a GM who is approaching the game as a Simulationist, but then a hard core Gamist destroys everything the GM expected to represent in play via legalistic use of the rules, then they need to find solutions to those expectations. You could say to the GM "suck it up, this is the game!" but if the GM doesn't end up having any fun, burns out, or wages some kind of passive-aggressive battle with the players, then no one is really winning.
I don't understand what the hell a simulationist vs a gamist is here. Pathfinder, and d20 in general, is a "simulationist" system. It has myriad rules specifically designed to simulate how things should work instead of just fudging it. I think the problem is GMs wanting to play a cinematic game while the players playing d20 are expecting to play d20, with all that entails.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, what about the divine caster? Why are wizards with arcane sight the masters of all magic, both arcane and divine, while divine casters can't even detect divine magic without standing right on top of it?The divine caster can planar ally someone to do it for him. Or not -- he/she has already got better BAB, hp, armor, and just as many if not more spells, so I don't feel too sorry for them.
What about the rogue? He's supposed to be the ace at detecting traps, but needs to hit DC 25 + spell level for a magic trap just to notice it, whereas the guy with a 0-level cantrip doesn't even need to roll. Yeah, he can take minor magic, but that's only 3/day rather than at will, and a talent is a much bigger expendeture, in terms of total class resources, than a spell slot.
1) Again, ANYONE can detect magic traps. Given that fact, who gives a crap WHO finds it as long as SOMEONE does? Finding the magic trap isn't the problem; it's disabling it.
2) A guy with a level 0 cantrip can find magic. Which may be a trap. He can find its location if he focuses for three rounds. However, Detect Magic does not tell you anything. Congratulations, you found a magic aura. What part of that divulges the existence of a trap?
There are plenty of limits; many people's proposals for create water would basically turn acolytes into slaves, not something that would fit most religions well, and assume more a great deal more acolytes than are actually available. Not to mention, it's pretty easy to kill the acolytes and break up anything built on the assumption that the acolytes will be there. Also, infighting between the acolytes and those who would use them would limit effectiveness of the strategy, as would the constant presence of outside enemies preventing the full deployment of said acolytes.You've completely missed my point. I'm not asking whether or not enterprising GM's can imagine a counter to this strategy. Not at all. I'm saying, what if a church wanted their land to not be a desert? What's to stop them? And in such a world, why are there any deserts at all?
20th level wizards may be uncommon, but 1st level adepts probably aren't.
Even if the church wanted their land to not be desert, there would be plenty to stop them. One, the logistics would be a major challenge, and the scope of the project would be significant enough to provide plenty of opportunities for those who oppose the church to cause implementation problems. Political rivals, desert druids, other churches, and any number of other groups could cause serious disruptions quite easily on a regular basis.
Second, in Golarion, those addicted to Pesh would get a little annoyed if they tried to remove all deserts. Like in Dune, the desert has products that other environments can't replicate that are in high demand.
Lastly, maintenance costs would be atrocious, and the will and ability to maintain it would have to be huge, and the push to make it more efficient would end up with most communities using a decanter of endless water eventually.
It's not that its technically impossible to do, its that anything of that scope is going to be quite costly compared to the benefits it would give, so realistically if it was to be done, someone would try some other, more efficient ways of doing so.
We play different games.
Bingo -- I think you hit the nail on the head there, Joana. And I'm inclined to think that the hobby's big enough for all of us, even if we differ on specifics.
|
|
It's not that its technically impossible to do, its that anything of that scope is going to be quite costly compared to the benefits it would give, so realistically if it was to be done, someone would try some other, more efficient ways of doing so.
I appreciate the argument that you're trying to make, and you should have a point, but by RAW alone, I don't think you do.
I'm reading a spell that makes 2 gallons of water for the 1st level adept every standard action. Those are six seconds long, IIRC, so that's 20 gallons a minute or 1200 gallons an hour, each, at maximum. Assuming half that rate over an eight hour work day (which is far less than the type of zealotry an effective religion can muster), that's almost 5000 gallons of water a day per acolyte.
I have always sucked at math, so check the numbers, but again I stress that the costs of such a resource of water are so very, very low that it would absolutely, positively change the setting.
Same goes for detect magic, but in a different area. Cantrips probably ought to have SOME kind of reasonable limit. I can respect the design desire, but the kinds of games these settings usually entail do not have such rampant magic in them.
Cantrips probably ought to have SOME kind of reasonable limit. I can respect the design desire, but the kinds of games these settings usually entail do not have such rampant magic in them.
Well, it's Houseruling, but I wouldn't have a problem with modifying cantrips, requiring a scaling difficulty (say 10+number of cantrips already performed that day) Spellcraft check.
Cantrips probably ought to have SOME kind of reasonable limit. I can respect the design desire, but the kinds of games these settings usually entail do not have such rampant magic in them.Well, it's Houseruling, but I wouldn't have a problem with modifying cantrips, requiring a scaling difficulty (say 10+number of cantrips already performed that day) Spellcraft check.
My brain hurts.
I have always sucked at math, so check the numbers, but again I stress that the costs of such a resource of water are so very, very low that it would absolutely, positively change the setting.
Unconsumed created water goes away after 24 hours. I presume there is some shift of acolytes who do nothing but cast water over and over and over for hours so that there is permanent water wherever it is cast.
It's not that its technically impossible to do, its that anything of that scope is going to be quite costly compared to the benefits it would give, so realistically if it was to be done, someone would try some other, more efficient ways of doing so.I appreciate the argument that you're trying to make, and you should have a point, but by RAW alone, I don't think you do.
I'm reading a spell that makes 2 gallons of water for the 1st level adept every standard action. Those are six seconds long, IIRC, so that's 20 gallons a minute or 1200 gallons an hour, each, at maximum. Assuming half that rate over an eight hour work day (which is far less than the type of zealotry an effective religion can muster), that's almost 5000 gallons of water a day per acolyte.
I have always sucked at math, so check the numbers, but again I stress that the costs of such a resource of water are so very, very low that it would absolutely, positively change the setting.
Same goes for detect magic, but in a different area. Cantrips probably ought to have SOME kind of reasonable limit. I can respect the design desire, but the kinds of games these settings usually entail do not have such rampant magic in them.
The math was done here, among other places.
Also, adepts get only 3 cantrips per day, not unlimited.
|
|
Unconsumed created water goes away after 24 hours. I presume there is some shift of acolytes who do nothing but cast water over and over and over for hours so that there is permanent water wherever it is cast.
I have always sucked at math, so check the numbers, but again I stress that the costs of such a resource of water are so very, very low that it would absolutely, positively change the setting.
Well some people swallow poison and kill them selves for their religions (Heaven's Gate); some strap bombs to their bodies and blow themselves up for their religion - and one that has no 'real world' proof (where as in the realm of fantasy roleplaying the presence and existance of gods is more readily tangible.)
I don't think it's a stretch to think that some zealots devoted to forests would spend 8 hours a day doing nothing but watering the earth.
Robert
|
|
YES!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SOMEBODY GETS IT!!!
I thought I had touched on this a while ago when I was indicating that the rules for Pathfinder are not "golarion" specific at all.
Different settings require flexibility for their rules depending on the flavor of the world.
I cited Ravenloft and Midnight RPG as two that had to tweak spellcasting to better synergize with the story they were trying to tell.
Remember that early on Vic on here said that one of the reasons he didn't want to sign on to WotC 4th Ed OGL agreement was that their rules did not afford them ability to write the stories they wanted to.
So there is quite a bit of emphasis on the story dictating the rules.
At least as DM, that's how I've always played. I ran a campaign in Midnight for 3 years, Ravenloft for 3 years, and Planescape for 2. The rules change to match the flavor needs.
Robert
|
|
Unconsumed created water goes away after 24 hours. I presume there is some shift of acolytes who do nothing but cast water over and over and over for hours so that there is permanent water wherever it is cast.
While absolutely true, this is completely irrelevant. 'Unconsumed water' means that it is no longer a desert. I do stipulate that the arid conditions would mean that shifts would be required to keep it going, but at these figures it really doesn't amount to nearly as much workforce as would be required to build even a single canal.