Ciretose, I was willing to accept that blood money could only be used on standard action spells. Quite frankly, I think I prefer keeping my components rather than having them annihilated on a interrupted spell, which that ruling would seem to support.
However, you're dead wrong on wish. It's clearly a standard action spell. The argument on whether or not the duplicated spell takes longer than a standard action is moot. After that standard to cast Wish, you're done.. It's now Wish that is casting the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is true that's horrible; it's the exact opposite of what Alpha & Beta testing should be.
That point was made many times. The thing is, the people doing the destructive playtesting had a disconcerting tendency to talk like "Comic Book Guy" on the Simpsons, which was really jarring, because prior to the whole 4e/PF rift, these boards were more like a hippie commune of chill gamers. You could almost smell the reefer smoke in every post.
Some of the new playtesters, although sober and keenly insightful, were also so bombastic that it was almost impossible to sift through the bile to get to the nearly-priceless gems they were coughing up. And so, ultimately, everything they were saying -- useful or otherwise -- got pointedly ignored. And the rules are the worse for it.
The whole point of 3.5 is that anything the enemy equivilent of you can do, you can do.
One of the main complaints of 4E was that players and the GM were playing by different rules in some ways. In 3.5 you are both rolling dice under the same rules, with the same restrictions.
I would love for more spells to have more restrictions, and while many problems from 3.5 were fixed, losing the XP penalities added to the problems of some spells.
At the end of the day, I want the BBEG to be able to summon demons and such. And I want the players to be able to do so as well.
But I want it to be a difficult and dangerous thing, at all levels. I think the opportunity for campaigns to evolve out of failed arcane experiments is a wonderful playground.
I don't honestly know why this isn't fleshed out more. What if these problem spells had an unavoidable spell failure risk that would cause the demon to be released, or the simularcrum to turn on you?
Right now it is implied in the fluff, but only enforced by "GM fiat" for reasons I honestly don't get.
Just adding something as simple as a spell failure chart with no way to completely make certain spells safe would both add to the game and correct a good number of these concerns.
Maybe next edition...
@Anzyr - You cite random people on the internet but dismiss a dev...it is almost as if you really are only seeking affirmation of your reading...odd...
FAQ it.
I was not citing that as proof it works. The spell itself says that. I'm citing that to show that your argument of "No one would argue for that." is completely untrue. But hey, you probably thought SLA's didn't qualify you for PRCs huh?
|
Ciretose, I was willing to accept that blood money could only be used on standard action spells. Quite frankly, I think I prefer keeping my components rather than having them annihilated on a interrupted spell, which that ruling would seem to support.
However, you're dead wrong on wish. It's clearly a standard action spell. The argument on whether or not the duplicated spell takes longer than a standard action is moot. After that standard to cast Wish, you're done.. It's now Wish that is casting the spell.
You actually argued against blood money until the quote came out.
But feel free to FAQ. Better yet, create a new thread and FAQ it there so we can get even more feedback.
As I said, if the Devs intended to remove casting time from high level spells to include the exploits I would be very surprised. Because they would have said "duplicate the effects" rather than just duplicate.
Wish lets you duplicate some spells. That is it. Not that it isn't a lot...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think having an honest dialog about the flaws of the 3.5 is something that can happen now, but back then they were trying to make the case that you should stay with a 3.5 variant in the face of a new, non-compatible, 3PP unfriendly DnD version.
Well 1) it was a variant that did fix/address some known issues. Of course it wasn't perfect (I also agree that making the perfect the enemy of the good is a bad idea). Plus, if it's true that this is how the playtesting was handled, and if it's true that now there could be an honest dialogue, then they ought to stop saying things like "X is only pushed by people with agendas"
Again, though, as said in another thread: it is technically true that these things are "pushed by people with agendas," only that agenda is an improved game. Now, pointing that out here I am not taking a stance on the specific merits - perhaps it does turn out, for example, that the "Martial-Caster Disparity" is a myth. But an ad hominem dismissal of people who sincerely believe it is a problem and that it would be nice if the game addressed it so people didn't have to houserule around it, gentleman's-agreement around it, or whatnot, doesn't advance things. It just inflames people by furthering a mindset that their concerns are not being taken seriously.
IMO whatever the situation was at the time (and editions are quite often designed in an atmosphere of crisis), it would be better all around if the people who think there are flaws in an otherwise very good and enjoyable game were at least given credit for being sincere in believing these flaws exist, and just wanting improvements, rather than dismissed out of hand as cranks with some sort of underhanded agenda.
Again, while also recognizing that does not mean every critic is correct on the merits. People do err.
That's why the devs gave it a cost of 25,000 gp, to balance out that it could be used to cast lower level spells as a standard action. That sounds perfectly balanced to me. But hey I'll make a Rules question post and FAQ it (though I think this falls under "Read the damn spell, no clarification needed, working as intended".)
You actually argued against blood money until the quote came out.
But feel free to FAQ. Better yet, create a new thread and FAQ it there so we can get even more feedback.
I thought someone did create a new thread for that?
Also, I think the issue is the same developer you cite (J.J.) has made contradictory posts on the subject (others have linked to a post by him which suggests that Blood Money can be used in the "abusive" way).
Which is why a definitive FAQ/rules-ruling is required. (I will stay completely out of the circular arguing going on in this and other threads. I only point out the reason that these discussions are endless is that both sides can find a quote by JJ backing up their interpretation. So this debate is interminable until they provide a more definitive ruling).
|
|
@Porphyrogenitus - Once again I ask people to consider what I wrote, not what people say about what I wrote.
In this thread, as in most discussions, I asked people who were making statements about what they believe to be true to produce builds that showed it to be true.
One person posted a sorcerer with a spell that I think is pretty broken (emergency force wall) that probably needs to be addressed and I won't be allowing in my games. It was in the Cheliax book, where a couple other problem items have popped up, so maybe the Devs might want to look at that book. That was helpful.
One person posted a wizard that was completely dependent on a questionable (and later disproven to be viable by Dev statement) reading of how a spell works, along with a number of other fairly clear exploits I don't think any reasonable GM would allow, and which the poster said he would not use out of a "gentleman's agreement" because even he thought they shouldn't be allowed...he is just still arguing for them because...I don't know why...
And one person posted a 12th level wizard that was...ok...fairly useful, but fairly fragile considering it was 12th level...which has been my experience with full casters.
The thread was asking if anyone has seen a God wizard. I asked people to post them. So far we have found one broken spell and that if you decide to ignore limiting factors in spells you can break them.
I would love to have more conversations like took place with the sorcerer build, but E-peens tend to get in the way...
If I posted saying that no one has seen the God wizard because of the 5 reasons that I posted on the first page (system mastery, gentleman's agreements, level of game, houserules and fun), why would I in demonstrating that the God wizard exists cleave to those? My point is to demonstate that the God wizard exists despite you being unlikely to encounter one (for the above five reasons). Of course those of you who read my posts know all this already.
Wish/Limited Wish thread up.
|
|
You actually argued against blood money until the quote came out.
But feel free to FAQ. Better yet, create a new thread and FAQ it there so we can get even more feedback.
I thought someone did create a new thread for that?
Also, I think the issue is the same developer you cite (J.J.) has made contradictory posts on the subject (others have linked to a post by him which suggests that Blood Money can be used in the "abusive" way).
Which is why a definitive FAQ/rules-ruling is required. (I will stay completely out of the circular arguing going on in this and other threads. I only point out the reason that these discussions are endless is that both sides can find a quote by JJ backing up their interpretation. So this debate is interminable until they provide a more definitive ruling).
JJ made clear that Blood Money is for spells of one round or less, but said you can do what you want at your table because it is your game. I linked to the posts, so did Dr. Deth. That was issue number one, which I think everyone but Anzyr has conceded this to be the case. And so much of his build does not work.
Issue number two is Anzyr is now saying he can still do it, because Wish is a standard action spell. The fact that it also says that you can use it to duplicate other spells (not duplicate the effects of the spell, mind you. Duplicate the spell), and those spells you duplicate have casting times of their own is a factor he convieniently wants to say does not apply because...well because then he would be wrong.
Again, he doesn't actually seem to think these things should be allowed in the game, but for some reason...again I have no idea why...he is vehemently arguing they are...
So my understanding is Anzyr is arguing that he is right that things that should not be allowed are allowed, but no one should do them, based on how he is reading the spells.
And I'm saying if you tell people who try to manipulate spells to sod off, 90 to 95% of your problems go away.
And I kind of feel like Anzyr is helping me make my point.
You actually argued against blood money until the quote came out.
Yes.. That's what I'm saying here.. I changed my mind on it due to dev clarification
As I said, if the Devs intended to remove casting time from high level spells to include the exploits I would be very surprised. Because they would have said "duplicate the effects" rather than just duplicate.Wish lets you duplicate some spells. That is it. Not that it isn't a lot...
If they wanted it to be a "true" duplicate, there wouldn't be the material component caveat. It would also be pointless to cast wish when the spell itself would always be the better option. The premium paid in a higher spell slot plus material cost seems justifiable that the spell you're duplicating is a standard action.
Otherwise.. My wish might just be.. "I wish the spell symbol of death required no material components when I cast it."
There, problem solved.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, I'm avoiding "builds" because that leads to nitpicking things like "Ooh, your Fort save is 1 lower than the Bestiary table says you should have for your CR!" and ignoring the fact that scry-and-die tactics are not only still rules-legal, but are in fact actively encouraged by the RAW. And again, they're easy to fix: a note in the rules that "divination and long-range teleportation effects are blocked by 1 ft. of stone, 3 ft. of earth, or 1 inch of metal" solves the whole issue and simultaneously explains why dungeons and castles even exist. You get to keep those spells, but without a lot of the abuse, and you also make the rules support the setting instead of working against it. Again, this isn't FAQ stuff or splatbooks. These are the core rules.
Simple hazard tables aren't a solution, because then all the abuse is still legal, but it's just randomized. If Kirth The Conjurer calls up a too-powerful demon, fails the roll, and gets eaten, I just roll up Karth the Conjurer as his replacement and try again. And try again with Korth, if need be, but sooner or later I'll end up with a too-powerful demon breaking the game. Hard limits, encoded into the rules, are what set the tone of the game world and prevent abuse.
I am arguing the spells should be used that way because I want them to be used that way. I am arguing they should be used that way because that is what the rules are. JJ's thread is explicitly answers for how he would run things in his game, and are not the FAQ/Books. Since my argument is based on the rules, I am taking all official game rules into account.
So your argument is the rules don't make Wizards overpowered if I tell everyone who tries to do something the rules allow to "sod off". That is... well... I would never take that position, but that's just me.
(The above is why people should use Gentleman's Agreement, since the power of casters is systematic of anything 3.5)
|
|
@Kirth - I hope that the fact that the upcoming list of hardcover books next year are a bit...thin...indicates they are gearing resources toward a more meaty release of a full version change.
And things exactly as you describe would be ideal to me. I would love to have the Devs go through the books spell by spell and actually address the concerns that have gone on since the onset of 3.5, as best they are able, and put in common sense adjustments like the one you listed.
I also think more problems exist in theorycraft than in practice, and I think creative reading and GMs without backbones are a bigger problem than the rule set. Particularly when serious discussions of these things get overwhelmed by e-peen "don't nerf me bro" posters.
I would personally throw 20 dollars into a pot to have you, Evil Lincoln, Treantmonk and a couple of others flown out to Paizo to sit down with the Devs on a panel to hash out some things to get us hackers out of the way and get real improvements into the game.
In the meantime, I'm just playing whack-a-mole with "the sky is falling" crowd and hiding in home games where I don't have to deal with people who feel entitled to whatever creative interpretation they can come up with.
I also think more problems exist in theorycraft than in practice
Precisely for the reasons Anzyr cited in his first post. I disagree with most of what he's said after that, but he did a bang-up job explaining why people don't see the problems that are so endemic to the rules.
and I think creative reading and GMs without backbones are a bigger problem than the rule set.
Clearer and less-abusable rules -> this matters a LOT less. Minimizing the "entire game depends on DM quality" variable would be logical, but that ticks off the "DM is GOD!" people who want to instead maximize that very same variable.
I am arguing the spells should be used that way because I want them to be used that way.We finally agree!
Way to leave out the line that follows that. Though that is a typo, I do not factor what I want into what a spell says.
Edit - Kirth: I'm curious what you disagree with after that. The only thing I can think of that is remotely objectionable is Blood Money on spells longer than 1 round.
|
|
Again, the assumption being that you can get clearer without ending up with tomes and tomes rules that are untenable.
I see room for improvement, but people will always look for loopholes and short of making some spell concepts go away, you can only clarify things so much before you have spells that are pages rather than paragraphs.
I think the lack of clarity in spells is for the GM is GOD side, not opposed to it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this thread, as in most discussions, I asked people who were making statements about what they believe to be true to produce builds that showed it to be true.
One person posted a wizard that was completely dependent on a questionable (and later disproven to be viable by Dev statement) reading of how a spell works, along with a number of other fairly clear exploits I don't think any reasonable GM would allow, and which the poster said he would not use out of a "gentleman's agreement" because even he thought they shouldn't be allowed...he is just still arguing for them because...I don't know why...
The reason many posters have posted, and will continue to post, examples of combos that depend on the use of poorly worded rules, is the same reason as so many did so during the playtest.
As Porphyrogenitus said above, and Kirth has been saying for years, when a loophole is seen, it needs to be dragged out into the light, prodded and poked at, and if it is found to be causing a problem, it should be fixed. If it can't be fixed in any efficient, easily worded way, maybe the option should be kicked to the kerb.
That's why people post builds that even they admit they would never use. Because they want the problem to be recognised, and fixed.
It's not good enough, to refuse to act on such feedback, because 'a reasonable GM would disallow it', or because 'players in my town agree never to use that'.
Not everyone has the luxury of playing with a GM who is knowledgeable enough to spot exploits, or comfortable enough with banning them.
Not everyone has a choice of playing with reasonable players, who self-nerf themselves by never taking core options that specifically give the power to break campaigns. They couldn't give a fig if your group pretends certain spells don't exist, after the 'Efreeti Wish Factory Incident'
"Gentlemen's agreements" have no place in organised play, where the GMs have zero discretion over allowing anything not specifically banned in the campaign guides. And where you can be sitting with complete strangers, who are entitled to expect that the rules they are playing under are the ones actually written on the page, not your personal interpretations, that they have to telepathically extract from the inside of your (or the writer's) head.
Wish is very clear, you just don't want it to be. Explosive Runes is very clear, you just don't like it. The way I am using Blood Money, Animate Dead, Explosive Runes, and Wish are not loopholes, they are rules. (If I read rules the way I wanted in my examples I'd be using way more Planar Binding in my arguments, but alas the amount of GM adjudication makes them a poor example and thus I don't use them.)
In this thread, as in most discussions, I asked people who were making statements about what they believe to be true to produce builds that showed it to be true.
One person posted a wizard that was completely dependent on a questionable (and later disproven to be viable by Dev statement) reading of how a spell works, along with a number of other fairly clear exploits I don't think any reasonable GM would allow, and which the poster said he would not use out of a "gentleman's agreement" because even he thought they shouldn't be allowed...he is just still arguing for them because...I don't know why...
The reason many posters have posted, and will continue to post, examples of combos that depend on the use of poorly worded rules, is the same reason as so many did so during the playtest.
As Porphyrogenitus said above, and Kirth has been saying for years, when a loophole is seen, it needs to be dragged out into the light, prodded and poked at, and if it is found to be causing a problem, it should be fixed. If it can't be fixed in any efficient, easily worded way, maybe the option should be kicked to the kerb.
That's why people post builds that even they admit they would never use. Because they want the problem to be recognised, and fixed.
It's not good enough, to refuse to act on such feedback, because 'a reasonable GM would disallow it', or because 'players in my town agree never to use that'.
Not everyone has the luxury of playing with a GM who is knowledgeable enough to spot exploits, or comfortable enough with banning them.
Not everyone has a choice of playing with reasonable players, who self-nerf themselves by never taking core options that specifically give the power to break campaigns. They couldn't give a fig if your group pretends certain spells don't exist, after the 'Efreeti Wish Factory Incident'"Gentlemen's agreements" have no place in organised play, where the GMs have zero discretion over allowing anything not specifically banned in...
This. All of this. Half the reason people enjoy my campaigns is because I know the rules well enough to know what the exploits are.
|
|
I am arguing the spells should be used that way because I want them to be used that way.We finally agree!Way to leave out the line that follows that. Though that is a typo, I do not factor what I want into what a spell says.
Edit - Kirth: I'm curious what you disagree with after that. The only thing I can think of that is remotely objectionable is Blood Money on spells longer than 1 round.
Aww...but we agreed!
The rest of what you wrote can be summed up to me as "I don't care if the person who wrote it said my reading is wrong, my reading is not wrong."
Which to me, is summed up by the Freudian and incredibly accurate typo.
If you are going to try and find ways to exploit the rules, which you fully admit this is an exploit even if your reading the developer has rejected were correct, than what is our recourse?
Make the game as bland as possible, because Anzyr exists and will argue even in the face of Dev clarification and so we can't have anything that falls to GM discretion?
Or...we assume GMs and player are reasonable, and that those who aren't will only be able to torment each other.
Well...and the poor Pathfinder Society folks...
|
|
@Snorter - And even when we drag it out and shoot it with a Dev clarification, some people still keep going on saying it ain't so.
Do we make the 500 page book 1000 pages? Do we get rid of interesting spells because some people want to abuse them and some GM's let them?
Blood Money is a really cool spell, both conceptually and mechanically, if it works exactly as the Dev says it does.
But because Anzyr reads it differently...
I don't think the solution to people not being able to handle nice things means we need to over litigate the game any more than I think because some kids bowl gutterballs all lanes should have bumpers.
I think a little less celebration of exploitation and a little higher expectation for both GM and player common sense goes a long way.
Not to say some things can't be worded better, but short of removing some spells entirely from play or writing 36 page manuals a single spell, some people will always find ways to abuse the system if they are permitted by fellow players and the GM.
Hell, even with 36 page manuals.
They aren't showing things to get them fixed. They are waving e-peen.
If you think something is broken, you say "I think this is broken."
You don't argue with the Dev that they are wrong and it works that way...
No the rest of it can be summed up as "I care very much about what the rules say and if I feel something is to unclear I would not use in an argument due to the lack of clarity, because I inherently value what is actually written rather than what I wish was written."
James Jacob thread is not "Dev clarification" its "How James Jacob would run it in his campaign". The two are not the same thing.
Why does the game have to be bland just because its balanced? I think almost everyone can agree that balance is better than unbalanced.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I often see the argument "The rulebooks will need to be 1000 pages long!", which I believe is Chicken Licken doomsaying whenever I hear it.
Many of the changes that would clarify problem spells, explain intent, and prevent abuse could be done so with less than one line.
In some cases, it would actually take less space, to explain a rule clearly, than the convoluted way it was originally written.
|
|
If this is true that's horrible; it's the exact opposite of what Alpha & Beta testing should be.That point was made many times. The thing is, the people doing the destructive playtesting had a disconcerting tendency to talk like "Comic Book Guy" on the Simpsons, which was really jarring, because prior to the whole 4e/PF rift, these boards were more like a hippie commune of chill gamers. You could almost smell the reefer smoke in every post.
Some of the new playtesters, although sober and keenly insightful, were also so bombastic that it was almost impossible to sift through the bile to get to the nearly-priceless gems they were coughing up. And so, ultimately, everything they were saying -- useful or otherwise -- got pointedly ignored. And the rules are the worse for it.
Which is why I would pay 20 bucks a select group of people to go out and do the actual playtesting, rather than the e-peen waving that usually takes place on here.
Hell, throw an invite only playtest con. My only fear is some of the idiots who think they actually know game design would get elected rather than people like you, EL, Treantmonk...hell I disagree with wraithstrike constantly but I think he would be a good add on to that group.
People who actually want to make the game better, rather than people who want to be thought of as people who want to make the game better...
|
|
I often see the argument "The rulebooks will need to be 1000 pages long!", which I believe is Chicken Licken doomsaying whenever I hear it.
Many of the changes that would clarify problem spells, explain intent, and prevent abuse could be done so with less than one line.
In some cases, it would actually take less space, to explain a rule clearly, than the convoluted way it was originally written.
I hear you, and again, I think it can be improved. But I also think the explaination of intent gets just as convuluted as the rules.
I kind of think the charm clarification in the FAQ was an office joke, for how little it actually clarified anything.
I think you need a group of devs and and players to go spell by spell, or at least problem spell by problem spell. Not on the boards, but in a room.
I'm hoping that is coming soon.
If that were true, you would be thrilled the spell does not work in the broken manner you described.
Instead you are arguing it does.
What does that indicate about your priority in this discussion?
Simple, because the rules don't appear to support that. What this indicates is that I care more about what the rules actually say, then my personal feelings on the spells.
Wish is very clear, you just don't want it to be. Explosive Runes is very clear, you just don't like it. The way I am using Blood Money, Animate Dead, Explosive Runes, and Wish are not loopholes, they are rules. (If I read rules the way I wanted in my examples I'd be using way more Planar Binding in my arguments, but alas the amount of GM adjudication makes them a poor example and thus I don't use them.)
Or you think it is clear but are wrong and the many people telling you no it doesn't work that way (including a dev in 1 case) are right.
Explosive Runes includes adjacency as a requirement for setting off the runes in the spell. Even if you could set them off like how you want, your tactic is rediculous and will never work with a semi-compotent GM responding to your setup.
Wish says you duplicate the spell. I will say, it is definetely a matter of FAQ if it duplicates casting time as well, but arguing that it is clear is rediculous, as many of the posters here disagree with you.
|
|
Simple, because the rules don't appear to support that. What this indicates is that I care more about what the rules actually say, then my personal feelings on the spells.If that were true, you would be thrilled the spell does not work in the broken manner you described.
Instead you are arguing it does.
What does that indicate about your priority in this discussion?
Despite the Dev saying they do...
If you had any altruistic intent, you would have embraced that your broken combo doesn't work, per the Dev.
Instead you are scrambling to find ways to make it work, because otherwise you would be wrong.
You being right is more important that the spell not being broken.
Which is half of the problem in most of these discussions, and why I think no amount of clarification will be as effective as careful selection of who you allow both at and running your table.
|
|
Wish is very clear, you just don't want it to be. Explosive Runes is very clear, you just don't like it. The way I am using Blood Money, Animate Dead, Explosive Runes, and Wish are not loopholes, they are rules. (If I read rules the way I wanted in my examples I'd be using way more Planar Binding in my arguments, but alas the amount of GM adjudication makes them a poor example and thus I don't use them.)Or you think it is clear but are wrong and the many people telling you no it doesn't work that way (including a dev in 1 case) are right.
Explosive Runes includes adjacency as a requirement for setting off the runes in the spell. Even if you could set them off like how you want, your tactic is rediculous and will never work with a semi-compotent GM responding to your setup.
Wish says you duplicate the spell. I will say, it is definetely a matter of FAQ if it duplicates casting time as well, but arguing that it is clear is rediculous, as many of the posters here disagree with you.
And more to the point, if this was about fixing the game for you, you would be arguing that it needs to be clarified to not allow your reading, not arguing that it does allow it.
That is the thing that always gets me in these discussion. The person who has "discovered" the broken exploit who fights tooth and nail to keep it broken...
Why, if there are multiple ways to read something, would you insist the broken way is the correct way?
Wish is very clear, you just don't want it to be. Explosive Runes is very clear, you just don't like it. The way I am using Blood Money, Animate Dead, Explosive Runes, and Wish are not loopholes, they are rules. (If I read rules the way I wanted in my examples I'd be using way more Planar Binding in my arguments, but alas the amount of GM adjudication makes them a poor example and thus I don't use them.)Or you think it is clear but are wrong and the many people telling you no it doesn't work that way (including a dev in 1 case) are right.
Explosive Runes includes adjacency as a requirement for setting off the runes in the spell. Even if you could set them off like how you want, your tactic is rediculous and will never work with a semi-compotent GM responding to your setup.
Wish says you duplicate the spell. I will say, it is definetely a matter of FAQ if it duplicates casting time as well, but arguing that it is clear is rediculous, as many of the posters here disagree with you.
Just one. In the other thread it is just him and LazerX as well. Unless you'd like to say that's how Wish works also. The only thing many posters have disagreed with me about is Blood Money working on spells with a casting time longer then 1 round and even then most of them agree its unclear.
Sorry Caineach, but I've gone through Explosive Runes and why it works step by step, post some rules if you want to disagree. "It's ridiculous." is a terrible argument.
|
|
Well let us move on to that.
"You trace mystic runes upon a book, map, scroll, or similar object bearing written information. The explosive runes detonate when read, dealing 6d6 points of force damage. Anyone next to the explosive runes (close enough to read them) takes the full damage with no saving throw; any other creature within 10 feet of the explosive runes is entitled to a Reflex save for half damage. The object on which the explosive runes were written also takes full damage (no saving throw).
You and any characters you specifically instruct can read the protected writing without triggering the explosive runes. Likewise, you can remove the explosive runes whenever desired. Another creature can remove them with a successful dispel magic or erase spell, but attempting to dispel or erase the explosive runes and failing to do so triggers the explosion.
Magic traps such as explosive runes are hard to detect and disable. A character with the trapfinding class feature (only) can use Disable Device to thwart explosive runes. The DC to find magic traps using Perception and to disable them is 25 + spell level, or 28 for explosive runes."
So we know that if you aren't with 10 feet of the runes, you aren't close enough to read them, per the spell. And they only effect you if you are within 10 feet, in which case you get a reflex save.
So if I'm more than 10 feet away, nothing. So you have to throw it within 10 feet of me to have any effect, and basically hit me to have me maybe read it and have it blow up, because if I'm more than 10 feet away...nothing.
You aren't targeting me to get it that close you said?
So we know that if you aren't with 10 feet of the runes, you aren't close enough to read them, per the spell. And they only effect you if you are within 10 feet, in which case you get a reflex save.
See this is your problem. You are reading the spell the way *you* want it to be, not what the spell actually says.
The spell does indicate that being next to the runes is close enough to read them. It does not indicate that is the only distance they can be read at. There is nothing to indicate that the reader *must* be next to them to be able read them. Please note I have indicated in these circumstances the enemies would get a Reflex Save as the spell requires (since the capes are not really "next" to them). Also, Hex does not read them because he can't. Either a party member reads them, or a summon.
Even assuming you had a point, the Suicide Summon trick will work because the Summon and the runes are most definitely next to you.
Wish is very clear, you just don't want it to be. Explosive Runes is very clear, you just don't like it. The way I am using Blood Money, Animate Dead, Explosive Runes, and Wish are not loopholes, they are rules. (If I read rules the way I wanted in my examples I'd be using way more Planar Binding in my arguments, but alas the amount of GM adjudication makes them a poor example and thus I don't use them.)Or you think it is clear but are wrong and the many people telling you no it doesn't work that way (including a dev in 1 case) are right.
Explosive Runes includes adjacency as a requirement for setting off the runes in the spell. Even if you could set them off like how you want, your tactic is rediculous and will never work with a semi-compotent GM responding to your setup.
Wish says you duplicate the spell. I will say, it is definetely a matter of FAQ if it duplicates casting time as well, but arguing that it is clear is rediculous, as many of the posters here disagree with you.
Just one. In the other thread it is just him and LazerX as well. Unless you'd like to say that's how Wish works also. The only thing many posters have disagreed with me about is Blood Money working on spells with a casting time longer then 1 round and even then most of them agree its unclear.
Sorry Caineach, but I've gone through Explosive Runes and why it works step by step, post some rules if you want to disagree. "It's ridiculous." is a terrible argument.
Or the fact that one of the first responces to you is a a quote of a dev saying it doesn't work that way, so most people aren't bothering to even go into the conversation. Real fruitfull discussion is to be had arguing with someone who blatantly refuses to accept the dev's clarification.
James Jacob thread is not "Dev clarification". It is "How James Jacob would run this in his campaign." Rest assured if a Developer or FAQ were to clarify it I would be on board with the ruling.
@Porphyrogenitus - Once again I ask people to consider what I wrote, not what people say about what I wrote.
That's fine; I don't mean to contribute to any of the misunderstandings/missreadings - of anyone's posts.
I'm just trying to avoid participating in the controversies and being as "neutral" as possible, for now. Not because I'm better than anyone else but because I have bad habits. So I'm trying to not get too into the overall debate.
The thread was asking if anyone has seen a God wizard. I asked people to post them. So far we have found one broken spell and that if you decide to ignore limiting factors in spells you can break them.
People have also posted numerous ways encounters can be 'broken' or at least made more difficult, or trivialize supposedly powerful foes (using the example of Balors), and most of their examples have involved the use of spells (simply because those are obvious), including spells working in their intended fashion.
There are of course other ways to do so, involving skills and the like, but many of these are less obvious because people differ on just how effective a skill (such as Diplomacy) can be.
Again I'm not trying to say one faction in this discussion is necessarily correct, though I will say that in my experience spellcasting provides more obvious avenues for abuse, and some of the other spells you don't think are broken often come down to campaign interpretation/deliberate DM "nerfing" of otherwise (too?) useful spells. IMO that does lend credence to the side that suggests that the main reasons broken casters don't show up in campaigns is because good DMs don't let and mature players don't use abusive/campaign-wrecking methods (because, yes, it is also true that a competent player who really wanted to, and whose DM lets them get away with it, can find ways to break a campaign with a martial character).
I also agree that a lot of people misunderstand what "God Wizard" is all about, as I posted (seemingly uncontrovercially) earlier.
I play mostly casters and I usually follow the "gentleman's agreement" model - I don't do things that would outshine others, or ruin a game (but I do know just what I could do, and I tend to pull out whatever I need to in order to survive, when pressed to the wall). Again, yes it's possible to do amazing feats with non-caster characters, too, but it's much easier to make a caster who could step on toes/outshine others/wreck a campaign (I say this because while I've been playing a long time, I am far from the best optimizer, but even I can come up with ways a caster could derail things; but it's more difficult to do that with martials).
Anyhow, I hope the above does not come off as condescending. It really isn't - I'm trying to pick when and how and how much to post not because everyone else in this thread sucks but because I can suck hard if I don't reign myself in (and by "suck hard" I mean "be a jerk").
@Porphyrogenitus - Once again I ask people to consider what I wrote, not what people say about what I wrote.
In this thread, as in most discussions, I asked people who were making statements about what they believe to be true to produce builds that showed it to be true.
One person posted a sorcerer with a spell that I think is pretty broken (emergency force wall) that probably needs to be addressed and I won't be allowing in my games. It was in the Cheliax book, where a couple other problem items have popped up, so maybe the Devs might want to look at that book. That was helpful.
One person posted a wizard that was completely dependent on a questionable (and later disproven to be viable by Dev statement) reading of how a spell works, along with a number of other fairly clear exploits I don't think any reasonable GM would allow, and which the poster said he would not use out of a "gentleman's agreement" because even he thought they shouldn't be allowed...he is just still arguing for them because...I don't know why...
And one person posted a 12th level wizard that was...ok...fairly useful, but fairly fragile considering it was 12th level...which has been my experience with full casters.
The thread was asking if anyone has seen a God wizard. I asked people to post them. So far we have found one broken spell and that if you decide to ignore limiting factors in spells you can break them.
I would love to have more conversations like took place with the sorcerer build, but E-peens tend to get in the way...
what about my build?
You get to argue about it for the next 7 pages. Good Luck!
And things exactly as you describe would be ideal to me. I would love to have the Devs go through the books spell by spell and actually address the concerns that have gone on since the onset of 3.5, as best they are able, and put in common sense adjustments like the one you listed.
I agree with this, too. I think most issues come from some underdescribed spells and a few broken/breakable abilities, not from the classes-as-such. A lot of things have been fixed over successive editions.
Note I also agree with something Kirth (I think it was Kirth) said earlier: over each edition, the same people who were saying "caster-martial disparity was all in your mind" would then, after a new edition came out, say "now that X is fixed, the caster-martial disparity is fixed."
(I also agree with someone else who in another thread pointed out that until 3.0, the disparity wasn't that great - though it did grow throughout 2.0, especially with each successive Forgotten Realms book. Those tended to be rife with over-powerful spells. Now, as a caster, I loved each and every one of them, but, c'mon. Anyhow, those are mostly gone in PF).
I also think more problems exist in theorycraft than in practice, and I think creative reading and GMs without backbones are a bigger problem than the rule set.
This is one thing that made, for example, the recent PFS thread on "what classes do you see?" interesting to me. A wider variety of classes are actually played than the impression one would get from pure theorycraft/Tiers-mindset.
However, this doesn't mean theorycraft is axiomatically wrong when it comes to how classes function by rule. It may just mean that in actual play with a good DM ("a DM with a backbone") and mature players, potential problems are headed off by work-arounds outside of RAW. Even PFS has many "house rules," and it's also true that many potential problems do not occur in PFS because it's not really a "campaign" (that is, each new week you might be adventuring with a totally different group) and because of the level cap.
In the meantime, I'm just playing whack-a-mole with "the sky is falling" crowd and hiding in home games where I don't have to deal with people who feel entitled to whatever creative interpretation they can come up with.
The sky isn't falling, and PF is better than 3.5, which itself fixed some things from 3.0 (though in each instance there were also - mostly smaller - cases where things were made worse. You mentioned the removal of EXP cost. Now, I think they had good reasons to remove that, but the change does have drawbacks). But there are also ways in which PF could be improved upon itself.
And though I do think there is a "Caster-Martial Disparity," I agree almost completely with you that all it would really take to address it is 1) go through the spell list and fix several broken spells and clarify a few others, 2) go through class abilities and fix or clarify the ones which need that, 3) upgrade the "Tier 4" and below classes; they are ones which need help irrespective of how powerful (or not) other classes are (so this really has nothing directly to do with "God Wizards;" - it's a matter of deficiencies in those classes, period).
Blood Money is a really cool spell, both conceptually and mechanically, if it works exactly as the Dev says it does.
But because Anzyr reads it differently...
He's not alone in reading it that way. RavingDork reads it that way and has made and posted builds (including quite thematically interesting ones) based around using it that way.
I'm sure those two aren't alone, and RD has linked in the past to posts where the same J.J. who said Blood Money can't be used that way, said, in effect, that it can be (and not just "well, you can do that in your campaign, but I wouldn't" - but rather in how J.J. described how components are used up in the casting of a spell). Now I wish I had saved that specific link (I think it was linked to earlier).
Anyhow I really, really, really don't want to get too deep into the debate over Blood Money. Nor am I suggesting that this interpretation is correct and yours(ciretose) is incorrect.
I'm just pointing out that more than one person has had that interpretation, and they have been able to find the Devs making rules judgements that support this interpretation, and there really does need to be a FAQ issued by them adjudicating it once and for all (even if 90% of people will never see it, at least it will allow people to make a definitive statement in threads like this one that eliminates all doubt as to what RAW is, so there won't be 47 pages of back-and-forth on how one spell works).
Btw, for the record: if and when they do issue a FAQ, they should rule the way ciretose is saying.
Hell, throw an invite only playtest con.]That point was made many times. The thing is, the people doing the destructive playtesting had a disconcerting tendency to talk like "Comic Book Guy" on the Simpsons, which was really jarring, because prior to the whole 4e/PF rift, these boards were more like a hippie commune of chill gamers. You could almost smell the reefer smoke in every post.
Some of the new playtesters, although sober and keenly insightful, were also so bombastic that it was almost impossible to sift through the bile to get to the nearly-priceless gems they were coughing up. And so, ultimately, everything they were saying -- useful or otherwise -- got pointedly ignored. And the rules are the worse for it.
BetaCon!
ConBeta!
The ConBeta Invitational Tournament of Champions Battle Royale (with cheese)!
1337 pros only!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
what about my build?
It was very nice.
Trolls came and ate it.
It was very tasty.
My only fear is some of the idiots who think they actually know game design would get elected rather than people like you, EL, Treantmonk...
Some of those people who "think they actually know game design" actually do. I posted this in my houserules thread not that long ago:
The funny thing is that I'm seriously not even very good at this. Frank Trollman was a better game designer half a decade ago than I am now. I'm willing to look at things honestly and objectively, which I guess puts me ahead of people who don't, but that's as far as it goes.
what about my build?It was very nice.
Trolls came and ate it.
It was very tasty.
oh crap.
So let's ccntinue debating about things that will never happen in 99.99% of the tables (due to houserule, gentlemen agreement, or direct gm ban) like blood money-> wish, instead of real problems with real spells that get used, like feeblemind, fireball, maze, resilient sphere+anu damage zone, etc