Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Again, has nothing to do with the spells DURATION and everything to do with the spells EFFECT. Instantaneous spells that are permanent are permanent not because of the duration but because the spells EFFECT is permanent.
If you can't grasp that then just use the actual duration listed on the spell and you can't go wrong (but a handful of spells will be worthless).
Most of the stuff just seems better written. I felt as if a large portion of Ultimate Magic was filler, but I hardly get that vibe at all when browsing through Ultimate Combat.
Except for the animal shaman archetypes for the druid. For the love of god, no more of those.
It's not the RAI. It's the editing."It is impossible to write a rule so clear that 100% of the readers will correctly understand it." --James Wyatt
Is it possible for people to interpret the "use the shortest of the involved durations" rule as "any duration-based effect combined with an instantaneous effect becomes a long-lasting, non-dispellable effect because *some* instantaneous effects are that way"? Yes, it's possible, but it requires the reader to disregard
(1) all examples of instantaneous, lingering-effect spells in the Core Rulebook, none of which are buffing spells,
(2) any sense of balance for what you should be able to accomplish with a low-level spell,
(3) that the lengthy meta-word is the only other way to extend a duration, and it only doubles the duration rather than making it permanent, so "finding" this other way to interpret a combo that is more effective than lengthy must be an incorrect interpretation.It's not the editing, it's the willingness to disregard what you know about how the game works. Actually, it's both, but it requires a healthy dollop of the latter.
Could the rules be clearer? Hell, yes. I say that about the entire Core Rulebook. But that doesn't mean that this combo is a reasonable interpretation of the rule as written.
I feel as though we've sufficiently hashed out our grievances on this point, so I'm going to leave it.
If I can derail to something else I had originally posted, what are your thoughts and/or questions regarding points 2 and 3 of my discussion of dislikes from Ultimate Magic?
3. Archetypes that were simply bad, or badly written. Sea Witch is a great example. Mediocre abilities, only modest flavor, but a perfect example of kludge writing: you get to pick a patron, but the patron provides spells from the Sea Witch patron spell list...which is all 9 of them. Why not just say that there is a patron for Sea Witches?
As I originally stated, I felt that Ultimate Combat came out as a far superior release in terms of editing and content. What could have caused this shift? Is it simply easier to hash out martial and partial caster classes? Are archetypes more difficult for caster classes due to a smaller pool of replaceable abilities? Are there fewer tropes for casters to design around so as to allow for more robust, flavorful characters?
Obviously, I don't expect you to agree with me on either of these points in full, but I feel that these two points merit attention, particularly the Hexblade example. It's just a big leap for me to understand how, for example, we saw a set of Magus archetypes in UM that included the Black Blade as the (arguably) strongest archetype alongside the Hexblade, which is good, but partially non-functional, while UC had archetypes for the same class like Kensai, Skirnir, etc., which were not only very interesting variations, but also mechanically well supported. I just feel like there's a disconnect that happened in the writing of UM that caused it to be...well...substandard for Paizo.
For me UC was a better book also it came down to the following:Abraham, thanks for your detailed response.
1. I'm sorry you didn't find the premade spellbooks useful. Other people have been very excited about them. How do you think a couple of charts would be able to present this information in a way that was more helpful, or amounting to more than just "pick X spells of level 1, Y spells of level 2," and so on?
well for what was present I would have been happier with a chart of "material used", "protective measures" then perhaps simply a number list of spells presented and ritual available. Yeah it would have been dry -- but then what was presented felt dry too -- perhaps what I'm missing is a reason to use these. It's not like I can easily print off a list of what was presented in the spell book section for my players, and most of the spell books had some many errors in them (with the missing spells or what have you) that a print out of what was there probably wouldn't have been so useful all the same. The fluff involved with each was... nice? But really didn't scream "SPELL BOOK LIST" to me... it ended up eating more room than I would have preferred.
2. What more would you like to see about making constructs?
Well one of my major disappointments was the lack of clarification on how animate object builds objects and the number of CP for each object animated or how to trade quantity (number of objects animated) for quality (more CP per construct) or what not. The mechanisms here fall far short of what is needed for a GM to be able to go, "yeah you followed the rules I can let that on my table" with animated objects.
Currently there are several Golems which is great -- but the options provided for them are insanely expensive (as are the golems themselves). A bit more on how to construct lower level, lower cost or higher grade constructs would have been swell. Instead all we got was a list of when what constructs could be made. Gee swell... but something I could easily get off of a fan site, or the SRD by simply searching the bestiary by type and CR.
It was a let down from, "We are going to include rules for making constructs!" to "Here's some construct options and a list of construct by cost and caster level." It left me going, "What -- this isn't what I bought this for."
Contrast this with the called shots rules, the mix and match armor rules and you quickly see where I'm going -- those were much closer to what I was looking for out of the construct rules and information. They where concise, easy to use, and quite simply rather elegant in their simplicity -- am I 100% on them? No -- but would I be willing to use them wholesale almost immediately? Yes.
3. Please clarify what you mean by "sad" and (by comparison to UC) "uninspired"?
How to put it -- it's not a bad book, but it feels too safe. Like 'well here's more of the same." I expect that from WotC -- after all that's what their splat books were -- "this worked here's more of it." Ultimate combat doesn't have a bunch of new feats that simply give bonuses on skills -- it's got style feats, combat feats that build on the concealment mechanic, feats that build off of vital strike. It goes full tilt with "BAM NEW IDEA!" "BAM HERE YOU GO!" "BAM YOU WANT HURT? TRY THIS" to quote a movie, "The hits just keep coming!"
I was expecting feats like Dimensional dervish in ultimate magic (not that I mind the feats now that they are out) -- but even more so -- feats that helped a spell caster seem unique in their field of magical expertize. Not simply (spell focus -- different) but things that change how they use the subschools of magic, or the descriptors. Perhaps feats that require elemental focus(fire) but then actually make your fire spells set the target on fire. Not simply metamagics but actual stuff that shows a caster isn't just another wizard throwing fireball but had full on studied fireball and used it much like a fighter might use an exotic weapon -- "I'm something your training hasn't prepared you for."
It simply wasn't there.
4. As we've discussed before, sorcerers are really hard to do archetypes for because (like cleric and wiz) they don't have many class abilities that can be swapped out for other abilities; bloodlines are about it, and yes, that limits the options of existing characters. Knowing what we know now, we probably should have given those classes more class abilities (obviously at the expense of spell slots or something similar) to allow for more customizability.
Having worked on the Sorcerer Aid project I feel this isn't quite true. However this could simply be a difference in design opinions. You clearly felt find diminishing casting for other casters, and changing things up wholesale for them -- dropping off options, causing some 'schools' of magic to cost more for a wizard than normal specialization and so forth -- there is plenty of room for these options for the sorcerer too. Heck even simple updates of bonus spells known would have been nice. However I feel that this is an area that enough people have said and presented ideas on that it's likely to get more attention in the future.
It probably wouldn't have hurt so much if things that gave Oracles extra usage of their revelations for free hadn't been in there. The sorcerer has to get all special in order to recharge his abilities once a day and the oracle can simply spend the same resource (a feat) to just get extra uses... when they get plenty of more uses than the sorcerer in the first place. Then you turned around and simply handed out the sorcerer's class abilities like they were candy to anyone with a charisma score and a feat to burn.
I mean you didn't just hand out Hexes, or Revelations, or what have you so willy nilly so doing it with the sorcerer's class features... the sorcerer who is currently the weakest of the base full 9th spell level casters class abilities just seemed like even more of a slap in the face to the class to me.
5. Yeah, we were kinda stuck with that one--we weren't supposed to put any new equipment in here because we knew we were going to do Ultimate Equipment. And Ultimate Combat *had* to have new equipment in it, otherwise the gunslinger/ninja/samurai wouldn't have the necessary support material. Argh.
Well can't win everything!
For the specific example of the enhance body word of power, it has a duration (1 round/level), so clearly it's intended to be a *temporary* buffing spell. Why, if you linked it to an instantaneous spell, would you think a *temporary* buffing spell would last forever and be undispellable because "instantaneous" can sometimes mean "creates a forever alteration to a creature or object that persists without magic and can't be dispelled"? Why would linking a *temporary* buffing spell to an instantaneous spell make the *temporary* buff become better than a permanent (dispellable) buffing spell? Why would you think sticking a low-level instantaneous word onto a 2nd-level round-based buffing word would let you create a permanent, undispellable buff?
Because you specifically allowed the combination by RAW. There are so many lesser combinations that you made illegal for balance reasons, but not this. It does cause some doubt.
I agree that not every rule can be written with a 100% guarantee that everyone will understand the intent behind it, but the belief that you can create instantaneous buffs with words of power is SO common on these boards that many people see it as a failing of the subsytem itself (and then don't use it as a result).
That tells me it's something that needs official FAQ or even errata. Without such a step to clarify your "obvious" intent, I imagine those beliefs will continue to persist.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I find absolutely obvious is that people are actively looking for ways to misinterpret rules.
It's also know in some circles as "ass-hattery".
What I find absolutely obvious is that people are actively looking for ways to misinterpret rules.
It's also know in some circles as "ass-hattery".
Earlier in the thread, I introduced a single sentence, at 18 words and 121 characters counted, to remove any doubt about the contentious issue. I also have (multiple times now) brought up an ability that has no function in the existing rules. Let's see how many characters and words we save:
At 20th level, a hexcrafter can select a hex, major hex, or grand hex in place of a magus arcana.
99 characters, 20 words.
True, typesetting would not allow for this. Still, consider for a moment that this is a very avoidable problem.
but the belief that you can create instantaneous buffs with words of power is SO common on these boards that many people see it as a failing of the subsytem itself (and then don't use it as a result).
I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a particularly common interpretation. I'm pretty sure most people on the boards go by the RAI. Still, the RAW of it is murky.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
... Instantaneous spells that are permanent are permanent not because of the duration but because the spells EFFECT is permanent...Um, that's what I've been arguing. What gave you the impression I thought otherwise? Would it help if I explained my reasoning in a different fashion?
You are saying the effect from the fly spell is permanent all this time?
I have seen many claim that Ultimate Magic had bad editing, imbalanced content, and other nerd rage worthy problems. I have also heard some state that Ultimate Combat, though better, has its fair share of problems as well.
However, it seems nearly unanimous across the boards that Ultimate Combat is universally better than Ultimate Magic.
Why is this? I own and have read both books. I have seen the errata threads. I've plowed through dozens and dozens of threads both condemning and praising both books. I have read and written reviews.
In the end, I'm just not seeing how Ultimate Combat is any better than Ultimate Magic, or how Ultimate Magic is really even all that bad. They both have mistakes and seem relatively on par to me in terms of design.
So, what is it that everyone is talking about? What is it that makes Ultimate Combat SO much better than Ultimate Magic? I'm just not seeing it. The both look like perfectly comparable products.
I think both books are great, even if a little flawed--only a step behind the Advanced Player's Guide, which truly was magnificent.
You can blame the Advanced Player's Guide. Ultimate Magic came on the heels of what has been acclaimed as one of the best designed Splatbooks of all time. The Advanced Player's Guide pioneered several new systems for the game that were extremely well-done and balanced (Alternate Racial Traits, Alternate Favored Class bonuses, Traits, and Archetypes), had a multitude of feats for all players, had new Prestige Classes, spells, and Magic Items. Anyone could buy that book and feel like they got something they'd be using and it was almost completely void of errors.
Bring on Ultimate Magic, you have a more specialized book (nothing for Fighters, Barbarians, Cavaliers, and Rogues) a tad more errors, no racial traits, no Prestige Classes, no Magic Items, the fact that the Words of Power System isn't easy to comprehend and ends up not being drastically different from core magic, plus more typographical errors, which made people who did not fit into one of those categories feel cheated.
When Ultimate Combat came out, not only did Paizo learn from their mistakes, but once again they had revolutionary new systems that affected everyone, namely piecial armor, vigor and wounds, called shots, and vehicle combat. On top of that, Paizo managed to do the impossible in adding firearms to a game that didn't make them entirely broken and unplayable while adding in the Far East to the mix. While this was another book where people loved it or hated parts of it, there was enough for just about everyone to find something enjoyable in the book.
Unless you're a Sorcerer Player full time, though Pup Shape is a FUN spell!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Oh.
I seem to have made an on-topic post in a thread that has already been derailed, crashed off of a cliff and into a ravine, then exploded on impact on top of a lake, creating great balls of burning water.
My mistake. Please carry on.
... Oh.
I seem to have made an on-topic post in a thread that has already been derailed, crashed off of a cliff and into a ravine, then exploded on impact on top of a lake, creating great balls of burning water.
And I thank you for that!
Hmmm... A good example is: The unic Ranger archetype of the Ultimate MAGIC, lose spell casting. Nothing more to say.
What I find absolutely obvious is that people are actively looking for ways to misinterpret rules.
It's also know in some circles as "ass-hattery".
Earlier in the thread, I introduced a single sentence, at 18 words and 121 characters counted, to remove any doubt about the contentious issue. I also have (multiple times now) brought up an ability that has no function in the existing rules. Let's see how many characters and words we save:
At 20th level, a hexcrafter can select a hex, major hex, or grand hex in place of a magus arcana.99 characters, 20 words.
True, typesetting would not allow for this. Still, consider for a moment that this is a very avoidable problem.
Indeed. I'd drop it to 19th level, letting you spend a feat on Extra Arcana to get a hex, or even 18th, potentially allowing for two hexes.
|
You guys really think the Advanced Player's Guide was one of the best splat books ever published? Most of the complaints people are making about UM in this thread are the complaints I have about the APG.
A lot of the material from that book is nice to have and felt like necessary additions to the game, but I felt like most of the material felt too cautious. It may have been that all the classes (which were the big exciting draw of the book) had been previewed for the playtest, making them feel less exciting when they actually came out, but aside from the summoner (which had a genuinely interesting and unique niche), none of the classes did anything terribly exciting or new.
Don't get me wrong, I think most of them are fine. In fact, I love witches. But everything about each of those new classes (except the summoner) felt like things that probably could have been done with the existing rules. Most of the spells and feats felt the same way, and the magic items chapter is one of the worst I've ever seen. By contrast, I think both Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat did a great job of bringing really new and interesting concepts to Pathfinder. The magus is one of the most well-made and interesting classes in the game, piecemeal armour is cool (although it sort of invalidates heavy armour almost entirely, given the ability to make +8 non-magical medium armour, without even reducing your speed if you do it properly), Words of Power is a really cool and flexible system, Ultimate Combat's feats and spells are really innovative, chapters on binding outsiders and building constructs were both cool (even if they each left room for concept expansion), etc., etc.
I will say that I agree that the spells and feats are both much more interesting and innovative in Ultimate Combat than in Ultimate Magic and that neither of those categories was Ultimate Magic's strong suit, but the book had enough other cool stuff to win me over regardless.
I still wish Paizo would tackle more revolutionary base class concepts, though. There's a lot of cool supernatural niches out there that would make great base classes that weren't spellcasters or fighter variations.
Thank you for your thoughtful, in-depth reply Serisan. It was a refreshing refrain from the hate speech so often thrown my way.
I can kinda see where your interpretation is coming from, but please don't pretend that the rules are clear when they are not. It's akin to calling us idiots for thinking otherwise, and it's insulting.
Ah, yes, irony.
4. As we've discussed before, sorcerers are really hard to do archetypes for because (like cleric and wiz) they don't have many class abilities that can be swapped out for other abilities; bloodlines are about it, and yes, that limits the options of existing characters. Knowing what we know now, we probably should have given those classes more class abilities (obviously at the expense of spell slots or something similar) to allow for more customizability.This isn't my problem with the wizard vs the sorcerer's stuff. It is the introduction of feats and magic items that give the sorcerer's stuff to the wizard, while also giving additional stuff to the wizard that the sorcerer can never have. I liked the new bloodlines, but hated the bloodline feats and amulets that give spontaneous casting to the wizard (even though those are from another book).
Well, I hope we get stuff in Ultimate Equipment which gives Wizard stuff to Sorcerers, then. Like, more spells known per level ( Runestaffs! :D ).
A lot of the material from that book is nice to have and felt like necessary additions to the game, but I felt like most of the material felt too cautious. It may have been that all the classes (which were the big exciting draw of the book) had been previewed for the playtest, making them feel less exciting when they actually came out, but aside from the summoner (which had a genuinely interesting and unique niche), none of the classes did anything terribly exciting or new.
Don't get me wrong, I think most of them are fine. In fact, I love witches. But everything about each of those new classes (except the summoner) felt like things that probably could have been done with the existing rules.
I will state that the Cavalier was not an interesting class to me until UC came out and fleshed it out so much. Inquisitor, Summoner, Alchemist, and Witch all did really interesting things, however, and Oracle was just a matter of time (that I felt was well executed).
Hexes required a new class in order to fully flesh out the abilities. The Judgment system is really interesting (especially with the changes from PT to release). Alchemist fit its own niche quite well and gave a quasi-mundane option with caster abilities to the system (which I've always felt was important). I agree with you that the APG's Cavalier write-up was more or less just Palafighter, but once it got archetypes, it became a very intriguing class.
The other thing that I think is really important to keep in mind is this: each time a book is released, my actuary buddy (who is one of our GMs) goes through with the ban hammer for our table. APG had very little banned (primarily a couple of traits). UM had a ton banned (he actually considered not allowing the entire book). UC has, as of yet, not received any bans. Your table may be different, but we had a lot of issues with only 1 of the three splats.
Our group also designs games and said actuary buddy is our lead developer.
The rules lay in those of instantaneous durations. The magic from fireballs creates fire and then quickly dissipates. The burns the fire creates, however, do not go away with the magic. The magic of an instantaneous bull's strength would increase strength, then the magic would go away, leaving behind the result of increased strength.
The logic between the two examples is identical.Except
"there is no magic here anymore, but the burns from the magic fire somehow still persists"
and
"there is no magic here anymore, but the enhanced strength from your magic strength spell somehow still persists"
require different levels of logic--the second one requires you to be incredibly obtuse as to how magic works.A wish can produce any one of the following effects.
[...]
Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score. Two to five wish spells cast in immediate succession can grant a creature a +2 to +5 inherent bonus to an ability score (two wishes for a +2 inherent bonus, three wishes for a +3 inherent bonus, and so on). Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be dispelled. Note: An inherent bonus may not exceed +5 for a single ability score, and inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack, so only the best one applies.Maybe those who think that wish can permanently increase an ability score are incredibly obtuse at how magic works.
Or maybe you're wrong.
Actually, that is exactly what SKR was talking about the bonus from Wish is instantaneous and thus Permanent, it has no duration. The bonus from the Words of Power has a duration and so if you make the duration instantaneous instead of 1 minute/level, it just ends that much faster.
Actually, that is exactly what SKR was talking about the bonus from Wish is instantaneous and thus Permanent, it has no duration. The bonus from the Words of Power has a duration and so if you make the duration instantaneous instead of 1 minute/level, it just ends that much faster.
The magic ends, the effect doesn't. That's OUR point.
Magic without effect is nothing and serves no purpose. There is no spell in RAW that does that. Fireballs burn, wishes increase ability scores, animates create undead or constructs.
These are but a few examples that support the absurdity that is the Words of Power RAW.
SKR knows the intent of the rules, but he is wrong about what the rules actually say and the amount of confusion they cause.
It doesn't matter who is right or wrong on a forum. What matters is that the rules get fixed so that they are easily understood by the majority and are easy and fun to work with. That won't happen if he is in denial (or worse, deliberately and knowingly avoiding the problem).
People shouldn't have to do mental gymnastics like those described by SKR just to play a game properly.
Actually, that is exactly what SKR was talking about the bonus from Wish is instantaneous and thus Permanent, it has no duration. The bonus from the Words of Power has a duration and so if you make the duration instantaneous instead of 1 minute/level, it just ends that much faster.Where is this explained in the rules, and why is it not equally reasonable to think I could create a Barrier Fire Blast Stone Wall, following the rules on spell durations as explained by the new Words of Power system as described above to largely duplicate Wall of Stone?
Or am I just
...being dishonest.... deliberately being obtuse... because you're not willing to discuss this honestly....actively looking for ways to misinterpret rules.and a
[asshat]?
I think you are thinking of this backwards. The effect isn't permanent because of the instantaneous duration, it has an instantaneous duration because the effect is permanent.
I would rule on your spell that the Wall appeared for an instant and then disappeared, by RAW. However, in this case as a DM, I would have no problem with the fire burst being an instantaneous effect and the wall having a duration of 1 round/level.
|
|
You are being all those things. It's not reasonable to believe it's possible because:
A) the listed durations for each of the words tell you whether or not they create permanent effects. The Stone Wall word says it lasts "1 round/level" which means it creates a temporary, dispel-able effect. That's as obvious as obvious could be. Therefore, reducing its duration to instantaneous brings a wall into being only to blink it out again just as quickly.
B) you've received an official ruling from one of the designers of the game that tells you it's not correct. That seems like it should just end the discussion. I imagine they'll include some sort of clarification in the next printing since you've raised such a stink about it, so what are you still fighting for?
|
|
Magic without effect is nothing and serves no purpose. There is no spell in RAW that does that. Fireballs burn, wishes increase ability scores, animates create undead or constructs.
That's true, but nothing about the Vancian spell system is modular like Words of Power is. Downsides of a modular system? It's possible to do things that serve no purpose when you combine things in a stupid way. That doesn't mean that things that are temporary magical effects are suddenly permanent nonmagical effects just because you've combined them with something that pointlessly reduces their duration to instantaneous. That's the RAW. You're trying really hard to avoid the issue that each of these words works only one specific way, regardless of whether you double its duration with the Lengthy word or reduce its duration by combining it with a word that doesn't last as long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've received an official ruling from one of the designers of the game that tells you it's not correct. That seems like it should just end the discussion. I imagine they'll include some sort of clarification in the next printing since you've raised such a stink about it, so what are you still fighting for?
That was NOT an official ruling. It was an opinion coupled with an insensitive remark on an internet forum.
An official ruling would be a FAQ entry or an errata to the rules.
Also, I don't think anyone is saying that they actually believe that the absurdity should or does work in the way we describe. It is, however, being said that the rules, as written, are flawed and confusing and in need of fixing. However, rather than recognize the problem and seek a fix for it, game developers and forum posters alike have simply resorted to name calling.
Shame on all of you.
You've received an official ruling from one of the designers of the game that tells you it's not correct. That seems like it should just end the discussion. I imagine they'll include some sort of clarification in the next printing since you've raised such a stink about it, so what are you still fighting for?That was NOT an official ruling. It was an opinion coupled with an insensitive remark on an internet forum.
An official ruling would be a FAQ entry or an errata to the rules.
Also, I don't think anyone is saying that they actually believe that the absurdity should or does work in the way we describe. It is, however, being said that the rules, as written, are flawed and confusing and in need of fixing. However, rather than recognize the problem and seek a fix for it, game developers and forum posters alike have simply resorted to name calling.
Shame on all of you.
And again, RD claims the mantle of victimhood. Do you make notches on your belt, too?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not one single line in the rulebooks that says you can't take actions when you're dead. RAW, dead becomes the best condition you can have. You're immune to the effects of further damage, can't be affected by anything that targets "living creatures," aren't subject to undead-specific effects.
Why hasn't anyone noticed this before? Surely this glaring oversight should have been corrected in the many errata that came out for the Core Rulebook! Oh, right, because it's common sense that it doesn't work that way.
And again, RD claims the mantle of victimhood. Do you make notches on your belt, too?
Why would one need belts when they don't wear pants? :P
Seriously though, I think I'm going to bow out of this (off)topic about now. People here are too stubborn, serious, and insensitive.
For some reason, I don't see a lot of accusations of intellectual dishonesty and asshattery against the people saying that Antagonize has some problems as written and needs changes.
It's because this is a "Ravingdork" thread. That's all. Apparently my reputation corrupts everything it touches, even good intentions.
And just because people say "Ravingdork is playing the victim card again" doesn't make it any less true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe those who think that wish can permanently increase an ability score are incredibly obtuse at how magic works.
Or maybe you're wrong.
Or maybe I'm not wrong, and you're deliberately trying to interpret a rule in such a way that you get a 9th-level effect (wish, permanent undispellable ability score increase) out of a 2nd-level spell.
|
For some reason, I don't see a lot of accusations of intellectual dishonesty and asshattery against the people saying that Antagonize has some problems as written and needs changes.
You're reading the wrong threads, then. I got called some names for suggesting just that very thing.
Speaking of which, SKR, if I mail you objects of various sizes and levels of squishiness, will you use your position in the Paizo office on my behalf to throw those objects at Jason until he fixes Antagonize?*
*This is a joke, I will neither mail you objects nor would I suggest that you would throw things at Jason.**
**But seriously, is he ever going to fix that thing?
Or maybe I'm not wrong, and you're deliberately trying to interpret a rule in such a way that you get a 9th-level effect (wish, permanent undispellable ability score increase) out of a 2nd-level spell.Maybe those who think that wish can permanently increase an ability score are incredibly obtuse at how magic works.
Or maybe you're wrong.
It's actually 4 wishes in a 2nd-level spell. Which is okay, because 9 divided by 4 is just a little over 2.
I actually do believe there needs to be clarification, but I don't feel there needs to be any changes to Words of Power.
Any "Instant" duration spell that has a permanent after-effect should be clearly designated in the spells description.
Because you can't make any case for instant = permanent without referencing one of those spells. The definitions for instant and other rules for magic in general and words of power specifically don't give any indication that instant spells have permanent effects.
From the CRB.
Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
Which means unless it says otherwise in the description it flashes and goes away. If it lasts longer then that it would be in the spell descripton, since there is no mention in the individual words that it does, when the duration is instantaneous the spell comes and goes in an instant.
One of my main interests in a new book is the feats section. (I typically look there before anything else)
I LOVE martial arts options, and the UC has tons. Superduper!
However. I like options for other classes too, I ocassionally play fighters or rogues or what-have-you, and the book seemed awfully slanted towards things like, well, fixing the monk. (Nice job on that, for the most part)
UM feats were pretty general, especially stuff like metamagic feats that can benefit any caster, and seemed less slanted towards one type of build.
Oh, and what's the deal with the archtypes? The UC had archtypes for samurai and gunslinger but none for ninja? Boo.
You can look at every single core spell: your interpretation doesn't make any sense. Mine does make sense. Seriously, I can't see how someone can argue something that is proven false by every core spell.
But the case with the Words of Power are that one is trying to take spells with durations and suggesting that by applying the minimal duration, that the duration becomes infinite. The words with a duration obviously end when their duration has passed.
My claim is that because those words came in with a duration, that by attaching them to a spell with an instantaneous duration is akin to a spell saying that someone is stunned for 0 rounds.
This is as opposed to the idea that when words are combined, that they just gain the description text from their combined words and that they may forget that their effect may have once had a duration prior to the word combination.
The wording probably could be better, I might suggest wording be applied to mention it, but from everything in this thread, it seems everyone knows the intent and the way the spell works such that they don't turn a word into a duration into permanent undispellable effects.
Which means unless it says otherwise in the description it flashes and goes away. If it lasts longer then that it would be in the spell descripton, since there is no mention in the individual words that it does, when the duration is instantaneous the spell comes and goes in an instant.Every Instantaneous spell with an exception in it's description.
Thank you for proving my point that every spell with an instantaneous duration that has some sort of permanent effect mentions it in the spell. Very nice of you.