|
This thread has been started to allow for a better forum for the discussion as to the points of Zolthux's post in WHAT ARE SOME THINGS ABOUT THE PATHFINDER RULES THAT YOU THINK MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW?.
Diego Rossi respondedThe first line on the description of spells and feats is for flavor and should largely be ignored when a ruling question comes into play. Ie: you CAN empower a cure spell. You cannot use shatter to deafen an opponent (Loud ringing noise anyone?) True strike cannot tell you where an invisible opponent will be, nor what action any opponent can take, etc etc
Tiny Hut is an amazing spell to use during battle from a tactical standpoint.
Restoration has a one-minute casting time. So do summon spells.
Spontaneous casters only need 15 minutes to regain their spells, which must be spent meditating (or in the case of bards, singing/performing)
The first line on the description of spells and feats is for flavor and should largely be ignored when a ruling question comes into play. Ie: you CAN empower a cure spell. You cannot use shatter to deafen an opponent (Loud ringing noise anyone?) True strike cannot tell you where an invisible opponent will be, nor what action any opponent can take, etc etc
No.
1) This is not a rule. It is an opinion.
2) It is not valid for all the spell. Again, an opinion.
3) Arbitrating deciding that a section of a spell is only fluff if a very bad idea.Following your way of reasoning, the "loud ringing noise" of the shatter spell is only fluff, so it can be safely discarded and the spell don't make any sound.
]"3) Arbitrating deciding that a section of a spell is only fluff if a very bad idea."
I'm specifically referring to the very first line in which is tries to give the players an idea of the flavor of the spell as opposed to the actual ruling on it.
Zolthux responded:
In either case, I did said that they should be largely ignored, not always.
And, finally, Diego Rossi responded:
Let look the fist few spells in the core rulebook in alphabetical order:Acid arrow: fluff
Acid fog: "Acid fog creates a billowing mass of misty vapors like the solid fog spell." absolutely not fluff.
Acid splash: fluff
Aid: the first row is the whole description of the spell. Absolutely not.
Air walk: "The subject can tread on air as if walking on solid ground." It is indispensable to comprehend what the spell do, relevant in the mechanics (you don't need the fly skill, you can use achrobatics). absolutely not fluff.
Alarm: fluff
Align weapon: "Align weapon makes a weapon chaotic, evil, good, or lawful, as you choose." absolutely not fluff.
Alter self: "When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the humanoid type." absolutely not fluff.So your rule that apply to most spell apply to 3 spells out of 8.
Again, it is not a rule and not even a good rule of thumb.
So, in the interest of further clarification (and the correctness of the list that the above mentioned thread catalouges), what is the correct ruling?
Depends on what your claiming about a spell. If a player is claiming because a spells flavor text says something that is not covered in the spell rules then you've let the fluff get to be too powerful.
|
|
Depends on what your claiming about a spell. If a player is claiming because a spells flavor text says something that is not covered in the spell rules then you've let the fluff get to be too powerful.
Can you elaborate? For instance, if a spell states "A blinding flash of light emanates from the caster. All creatures withing 30 feet are blinded for 1d6 rounds."
Can a group a mile away see the light (as a pinpoint), or does it only have the effect of the second sentence?
Depends on what your claiming about a spell. If a player is claiming because a spells flavor text says something that is not covered in the spell rules then you've let the fluff get to be too powerful.Can you elaborate? For instance, if a spell states "A blinding flash of light emanates from the caster. All creatures withing 30 feet are blinded for 1d6 rounds."
Can a group a mile away see the light (as a pinpoint), or does it only have the effect of the second sentence?
I would say it depends if you in an open field yes. Now if someone tried to argue that a drow would be dazzled because of the bright light even though they aren't directly in the spell then you went to far.
Here's what I generally do. Take the line that you think is fluff. Remove it from the spell description and then pretend that you've never played any sort of RPG. Does the spell still make sense?
Acid Arrow for instance, since it's mentioned.
Without the first line, to someone who has never played before: "So, I just created an arrow made out of acid? Do I throw it? Shoot it from a bow? Wat do."
Visual descriptions matter. They may be fluff, but they matter. I've had players attempt to pinpoint enemy casters by trying to follow a spell back to it's source.
This is a very situational ...situation. Sometimes the rule works just fine, other times it can get you into some major trouble because the developers put major information in the opening lines.
Basically it's a case by case basis, from my perspective. In addition, it works better for feats than for spells, but not always.
Here's looking at you Elemental Channel *shakefist*.
|
My first and foremost problem is that the title of the original thread is:
"what Are Some Things About The Pathfinder Rules That You Think Most People Do Not Know"
This "thing" is not even remotely a rule. Nowhere any of the rulebooks say "you can safely dismiss the first sentence from a feat/spell/ability ecc.", so presenting it as a fact in a thread about rules is wrong.
As a way to do things I don't think it is even a good rule of thumb. The phrases that some of us consider fluff are an integral part of the description of the spell/power/feat.
We should not automatically assume that there are secondary effects linked to the descriptive text (being deafened by shatter as in Zolthux example) but the description give relevant informations (the spell make a loud noise).
Personally I have a big problem with this kind of approach where people say "part X of the description is fluff", especially with spells.
More often than not the "fluff" part, if read carefully, has effects that limit the spell or make clearer how it work.
This is something that I like about 4e's stat blocks. It clearly differentiates the fluff from crunch.
While I don't think this needed to get its own thread, as it was not that big of a deal, all I was trying to say was that in many occasions the fluff on the spell has some conflict with the actual game mechanics.
I ran a character a few months ago where this was a (small but resolved) issue:
I was running a Paladin/Sorcerer Eldritch Knight. So being a Paladin, I was lawful and had his code of honor etc etc. I made my char so he honored "the ancients" (Erastil deity, some stuff about his parents being killed and so forth)
Anyway, I chose one of my level 2 spells to be False Life, because extra hp is always nice, and the other paladin in the party called me out saying that necromancy is usually evil and a player with levels in paladin shouldnt take those spells.
The first line of False Life reads:
"You harness the power of unlife to grant yourself a limited ability to avoid death."
It does make it sound like I'm using some dark source to get the extra Hp.
Now let's compare it to this made up spell:
"Ancestral Protection
School necromancy; Level sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a drop of blood)
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 hour/level or until discharged; see text
Your call out to the previous members of your bloodline for protection. While this spell is in effect, you gain temporary hit points equal to 1d10 + 1 per caster level (maximum +10)."
Mechanically, it's the exact same thing, but now the flavor is different.
That's just an example, of course. The fluff of spells and feats should not interfere with the mechanics of the game. Although they do provide RP opportunities and that's more of a GM discretion thing anyway
While I don't think this needed to get its own thread, as it was not that big of a deal, all I was trying to say was that in many occasions the fluff on the spell has some conflict with the actual game mechanics.
I ran a character a few months ago where this was a (small but resolved) issue:
I was running a Paladin/Sorcerer Eldritch Knight. So being a Paladin, I was lawful and had his code of honor etc etc. I made my char so he honored "the ancients" (Erastil deity, some stuff about his parents being killed and so forth)
Anyway, I chose one of my level 2 spells to be False Life, because extra hp is always nice, and the other paladin in the party called me out saying that necromancy is usually evil and a player with levels in paladin shouldnt take those spells.
The first line of False Life reads:
"You harness the power of unlife to grant yourself a limited ability to avoid death."
It does make it sound like I'm using some dark source to get the extra Hp.
Now let's compare it to this made up spell:
"Ancestral Protection
School necromancy; Level sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a drop of blood)
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 hour/level or until discharged; see text
Your call out to the previous members of your bloodline for protection. While this spell is in effect, you gain temporary hit points equal to 1d10 + 1 per caster level (maximum +10)."Mechanically, it's the exact same thing, but now the flavor is different.
That's just an example, of course. The fluff of spells and feats should not interfere with the mechanics of the game. Although they do provide RP opportunities and that's more of a GM discretion thing anyway
Being a Paladin and all, you are probably the most fluff heavy class that it's possible to play. Everything you do depends on sticking to that little LG tag. I'd say the fluff of the spells is absolutely important for you and absolutely has bearing on the mechanics of the game.
That's just an example, of course. The fluff of spells and feats should not interfere with the mechanics of the game. Although they do provide RP opportunities and that's more of a GM discretion thing anyway
You can certainly choose this option. Whether it is what the developers intended is debatable, but ultimately cannot be determined unless one of them chimes in.
For my part, I prefer _not_ disregarding it. If the ancestral protection spell was in my game, I would say that a construct, for instance, would gain no benefits from casting it. I.e. I would make mechanical decisions based on the fluff text. At the same time, I might let that same construct make an otherwise mechanically equivalent spell that instead called upon creatures of Mechanus to accomplish the same thing. My elementalist might have a sound-based shatter spell, which in that case could also be used to create loud noises, or instead a form based on creating subtle cracks, which could not.
We likely prioritize subtly different things, though. Which is entirely fine. I guess this is one of those areas where it might be good to make sure that the DM and all the players are aware of which interpretation goes before the game starts, to avoid misunderstandings and so no-one bases their actions on misunderstandings.
Being a Paladin and all, you are probably the most fluff heavy class that it's possible to play. Everything you do depends on sticking to that little LG tag. I'd say the fluff of the spells is absolutely important for you and absolutely has bearing on the mechanics of the game.
Yeah, that 2 level dip for the saves and once per day ignore all DR was nice and all, but I hated having to be LG. Esp cos there was another pally in the party so he was constantly trying to prove that he was the better paladin (which obv he was because he actually had more than 3 levels in it. I was the gish :D)
Seriously though, I don't like playing paladins. I like feats too much