| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that whole deal is less about the rules being unclear than it is that a lot people thinks the ruling was stupid, and SKR kind of stuck his foot in his mouth with the whole "secret rules" thing.Wasn't I supposed to get a Super Secret Decoder Ring, as part of my Superscriber initiation?
Shh! The first rule of the Secret Rules Club is that you don't talk about the Secret Rules Club.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please tell me that this quote is not real life:Just because the rule isn't printed in the book doesn't mean there aren't rules that guide and limit what characters and monsters can and can't do.He must have meant to say something else
Design goals usually aren't printed in the books. If they have been achieved, they don't have to be.
Design goals usually aren't printed in the books. If they have been achieved, they don't have to be.
Please tell me that this quote is not real life:Just because the rule isn't printed in the book doesn't mean there aren't rules that guide and limit what characters and monsters can and can't do.He must have meant to say something else
+1000
.
[Bowie]We can be heroes.
Just for one day.[/Bowie]
Best BBC tag ever! It should make text look like this.
|
The spell specifies they are triggered by someone reading them next to them not from a distance and the dispel thing requires greater dispel.
That's true; the changes to dispel magic between 3.5 and PF mean a Dispel Magic will only set off one rune at range, which can be remotely cast from prepared spell, spontaneous spell slot, scroll or wand.
A Greater Dispel Magic is required to set off more than one, which rules out a wand.
I should have been clearer.
This does not change the main fact, which ciretose has consistently refused to acknowledge; the fact remains that they can be triggered remotely, and if using scroll or wand, is more likely to be successful, since the caster level of the dispel can be set at a lower level than the caster level of the targeted runes.
As to the range they can be read by; it would make sense for the creator to write the runes small enough that the target would need to be on top of them to read them, but given the insane Perception bonuses some characters can achieve, it would not surprise me, if there were someone searching the room with maxed out Perception, Skill Focus, elixir of vision, etc, who was able to read the runes from 15 feet away, or further, setting them off harmlessly.
Without a DC specified, it's hard to say, which is another reason to avoid allowing the spell in your game, as I think we can all do without the inevitable debate that would occur ("I could have read them before going near them." "Could not." "Could too!", etc).
I'm not a fan of the blanket 'add +1 to Perception DCs per 5 feet of distance', since it fails to scale appropriately. If you make the ground zero DC easy, it makes spotting them at range too easy; if you make spotting them at 15 feet difficult, it means people with their nose in the text could fail to perceive the runes.
()
The DC should ramp up significantly, from trivial at range zero, through medium at 5 feet, hard at 10 feet, very difficult at 15 feet...
But without guidance on that aspect, the spell remains subject to GM fiat, potentially being ruled differently every time it's used, and bringing the game to a crashing halt.
I don't use it as a player, I tell my players not to use it when I GM, I swap it out from NPCs whenever I see it, and I'd like to see it scrapped or fixed.
But it will never be fixed, until the issues are recognised and acknowledged as real.
I would love to agree with you, but after the message boards on TWF and THF (armored spikes FAQ) that exploded the last couple of days I have to disagree. Even when a FAQ clearly explains an unclear rule, a lot of people don't want to hear it. They demand a rationale for the rule. When a dev came on an tried to give the rationale for the FAQ, people wanted a longer, more detailed explanation. A second dev comes on, gives a longer explanation, but it wasn't enough. A third dev came on, gave an even more in-depth rationale for the FAQ, and there is still a lot of arguing. It makes me think that regardless of how well the Devs explain the rules, people will choose to not believe it cause it doesn't fit their genius idea of how to break the rules. Personally, I think that in order to make the rulebook absolutely clear to all it would be much larger than 1000 pages and no game company would even think about publishing it.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.
Wizards of the Coast has done an outstanding job supporting the rules for Magic the Gathering. I'd love to see Paizo, or other game companies for that matter, follow their model. They have a rules team, a comprehensive rulebook, and an extensive online FAQ that is well organized and easily searched. Obviously a CCG and an RPG have different needs when it comes to rules adjudication, but the model is still good.
Paizo does have rules experts, and they do post an FAQ. I think the major differences are twofold.
First, with Pathfinder, as with RPGs in general, there is less of an emphasis definitive answers. The company is satisfied to leave some rules vague or questions unanswered, instead trusting GMs to rule independently. That's healthy, up to a point, but in a very rulesy game system like Pathfinder, I'd like more clarity from the top.
Second, there's a hesitation to publish official material outside of the printed books that might contradict the print media. This is understandable, as one shouldn't undermine one's own material lightly. On the other hand, unless those contradictions are extensive, I don't feel they pose a problem. Presumably "core concepts" are strong enough that any online rulings would simply clear up misconceptions rather than introduce conflicts, and less-core rules, the proper interpretations of details of specific feat or spell interactions, only impact players (and GMs) who have encountered a bump and choose to look up an official solution.
TL;DR I like rules teams and think Paizo's should be more aggressive.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a very big problem, in that issues are being marked as resolved, when they aren't, or at least, not resolved in any way that 99% of the gaming population will benefit from.
As an example, I went to Paizocon UK last weekend; before doing so, I decided to print the errata and FAQs relating to the Summoner, as several of the abilities have had to be clarified since first printing of the APG (specifically Augment Summoning and Life Link).
I know they'd been resolved, because the devs had backed up my reading of the abilities involved. In the case of Augment Summoning, JB stated it worked with SLAs; in the case of Life Link, SKR agreed the action type needed changing from 'free action' to 'not an action', and both had declared their matter fixed, FAQed, and errataed.
Yet when I came to prep for the Con, I found neither of those abilities mentioned in the errata, for either the CRB, nor the APG, or at least nowhere that would intuitively be searched, by anyone trying to find a ruling mid-game.
I was able to find the relevant posts in the discussion threads, and printed those, but that's hardly ideal. I only knew those posts existed, because I had started, or participated in, the thread.
It may be that the Augment Summoning issue is considered resolved, as part of an overall errata on the interaction between feats and SLAs, but that isn't how the general playing public is going to perform a search.
Life link, there's a mention in the FAQ, but trying to perform a search on 'life link faq' gives a page of guff from the interminable 'Can I delay making saves vs Hold Person?' thread, with the relevant material pushed 3/4 down the page.
Most PF players don't frequent the forums. Many who have a rules query will come to perform a hit and run search, using keywords, that give few or no hits, so will continue to run their game as before, using the material that's actually written on the page.
There's quite a superior attitude being adopted, by some forum regulars, against players who use the text as written; a sneering, exclusionary clique, who dismiss 99% of the PF player population as 'munchkins', or 'cheats', because "Don't you know, that was errataed, last year, in post number 842 of 3689, of the 543rd thread. If you'd bothered to read it, you'd see your interpretation is a cheap attempt to abuse the intent...".
Which takes us right back to the parable of the bent traffic cop, and his "The sign may say 50, boy, but everybody who's anybody knows it means 40. Now assume the position!"
If it was errataed (not FAQ'd) it's more a case of someone using outdated laws. They HAVE been changed, officially, your rulebook is just out of date.
The spell specifies they are triggered by someone reading them next to them not from a distance and the dispel thing requires greater dispel.
No, you only need Greater Dispel Magic if you want to dispel more than one spell. If you want to fail against a whole lot of spells regular Dispel Magic will do fine. If you fail to dispel the first spell with Dispel Magic you compare the same roll against the next spell. You keep comparing your roll against all the spells until you dispel one or you run out of spells.
The original argument was that Explosive Runes are placed on a bloody skeleton, then read and blown up. Then they were placed on a cloak so that it could only be read from the back. (Which is patently ridiculous because everybody knows that no one has a back.) Then it was stated that they were placed on a stack of cloaks, one on top of the other, so that they could be read and exploded one at a time.
The latest incarnation would indeed require a Greater Dispel Magic, but then you have to allow the skeleton to wear upwards of 100 cloaks on it's back with out encumbrance and also rule that exploding one cloak on top of the others leaves them completely unharmed.
Honestly by that point if I were playing in that game I would be breaking out the crackers, because there would be plenty of cheese to go around.
Edit: Oh, and you can cast a spell at Caster Level 1 without putting it on a wand, regardless of your actual level. There's some post somewhere on these boards saying so. ;)
Edit2: Found the rule, looks like you can only lower it to 5.
Caster Level
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.
|
|
If it was errataed (not FAQ'd) it's more a case of someone using outdated laws. They HAVE been changed, officially, your rulebook is just out of date.
I've just been to the errata page, and downloaded the latest APG errata, version 1.0, just to make sure there hadn't been an update that I missed.
Absolutely nothing in there, for either topic.
Yet the threads the devs contributed to are marked as done, dusted, answered, FAQed, errataed and mothballed. Nothing to see here, move along.
While the Augment Summoning may get left as an FAQ, since it is a clarification of a general stance on the interaction of Feats and SLAs, the Life Link problem was very clearly marked as requiring a change to the APG text.
Making pronouncements on forum threads is worthless, if the changes never make it into the errata. How are people supposed to find out these things?
|
|
(confirming what other posters have suggested doing, involving a load of convoluted fiddle-faffing about with cloaks and skeletons)
That's a lot of effort to go to, setting up a skeletal haberdashery.
What's stopping the caster just scribing them on 100 pieces of paper?
Stack them up in a good ambush spot, take up position, then toss a greater area dispel at them?
Keep the runes caster level as high as you can go, while greater dispelling at minimum caster level 11. If you are caster level 11, the law of averages means half of them should still explode. Higher than 11 results in a greater %age of them successfully being triggered.
This is not even a remotely contentious use of the spell; it's spelled out, right there, within the text of the explosive runes themselves.
RAW and RAI.
The skeletons are largely intended to be "delivery" mechanism that prevent the caster from having to get near things. It really could be just 100 pieces of paper attached to the skeleton, the primary benefit of attaching them to a moving creature is that you can position them rather then waiting on someone to get near.
Also Lord Twig, the rules do in fact say that all gear is unharmed (except on a roll of a natural 1, which may then have gear related consequences). If the actual rules seem cheesy to you that seems like a PF issue not a player issue.
Finally, regardless of the above having a Summoned Monster just read off the Runes directly while next to an opponent is going to achieve the same effect and no contention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and now imagine how the situation would be different if each explosive rune cost X gp to scribe. Or if each one occupied a spell slot as long as it remained latent.
If it was errataed (not FAQ'd) it's more a case of someone using outdated laws. They HAVE been changed, officially, your rulebook is just out of date.I've just been to the errata page, and downloaded the latest APG errata, version 1.0, just to make sure there hadn't been an update that I missed.
Absolutely nothing in there, for either topic.
Yet the threads the devs contributed to are marked as done, dusted, answered, FAQed, errataed and mothballed. Nothing to see here, move along.While the Augment Summoning may get left as an FAQ, since it is a clarification of a general stance on the interaction of Feats and SLAs, the Life Link problem was very clearly marked as requiring a change to the APG text.
Making pronouncements on forum threads is worthless, if the changes never make it into the errata. How are people supposed to find out these things?
I was just correcting your terminology.
"GOD" Wizards are support characters. They stroke their own ego while making skillmonkeys and martials do all the real work.
Atleast we are talking about Treantmonk's God Wizard right?
True story, bro. That is the Treantmonk GOD.
Not that controller is solely support. It's very important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well certainly not a LoL support. More like a sports bra. Keeps the party looking excellent during high activity.
"GOD" Wizards are support characters. They stroke their own ego while making skillmonkeys and martials do all the real work.
Atleast we are talking about Treantmonk's God Wizard right?
true
but a cleric, oracle, or druid, can cover the martial role
and a wizard or witch can cover the major portions of the skill monkey role. scouting, trapfinding, fop, tracker
both require special considerations you wouldn't normally expect to consider
for the divine casters, it is all about attribute investment and careful class feature selection
for the arcanists, it is mostly a matter of skill points
I'll give you druids, but the rest sacrifice what they are suppose to do to fill a different role or are bad at filling the role (wizard skill monkey, you still have to burn spells to be competent, which kind of defeats the purpose of a skill monkey)
That's a dex skill. Congrats the rogue is +8 better at that!
Why grab a skill you have spells for just to step on the toes of skillmonkeys? Let them open doors all day, you can focus on wizard skills.
Also knowledge noble and engineering are some hardcore OP skills when used right.
That's a dex skill. Congrats the rogue is +8 better at that!
Why grab a skill you have spells for just to step on the toes of skillmonkeys? Let them open doors all day, you can focus on wizard skills.
Also knowledge noble and engineering are some hardcore OP skills when used right.
+3 for class skill
a pair of boots could make up the other 5
and a Dex difference of 1-2 points, maybe 3 if the rogue overinvested in dexterity, is hardly an issue.
so difference of +5?
i buy the boots the rogue has no use for that make me a trapfinder of similar skill
the highest DC for magic Traps is 35, and there are few traps nearing DC 40.
but most traps are DC 20-30. achievable by 10th level with a reasonable (if not guaranteed) chance of success.
All the while not filling your real role. I guess no one wanted to play a bard?
All the while filling your real role.Sorry had to fix your quote
Wasting resources to fill another classes role. No one is saying casters can't do that, just that it is bad for the party.
Wasting resources to fill another classes role. No one is saying casters can't do that, just that it is bad for the party.All the while filling your real role.Sorry had to fix your quote
all you wasted was some skill points and a handful of magic items
it is a better rogue than a rogue, not because of skill numbers, but because of the things it can contribute besides skills in addition to skills.
Or you know, play a Bard.
Wizards has no business skill monkeying.
EDIT: I won't argue for rogues. But the party does should have a real skill monkey.
Wizards has no business skill monkeying.
Why not?
It takes nothing significant from them.
All they really NEED are Kn. Arcana and Spellcraft, leaving somewhere between 4 and 8 (at the very high end) skill points to be allocated as they wish.
Doesn't interfere with their casting any.
Wizards has no business skill monkeying.
Why not?
It takes nothing significant from them.
All they really NEED are Kn. Arcana and Spellcraft, leaving somewhere between 4 and 8 (at the very high end) skill points to be allocated as they wish.
Doesn't interfere with their casting any.
Heck, they don't even need Kn. Arcana either. spellcraft helps them craft items, and Knowledge ranks are just there to meet prerequisites.
if you don't care too much about requirements, a wizard can neglect Knowledge skills.
Wizards has no business skill monkeying.
Why not?
It takes nothing significant from them.
All they really NEED are Kn. Arcana and Spellcraft, leaving somewhere between 4 and 8 (at the very high end) skill points to be allocated as they wish.
Doesn't interfere with their casting any.
Heck, they don't even need Kn. Arcana either. spellcraft helps them craft items, and Knowledge ranks are just there to meet prerequisites.
if you don't care too much about requirements, a wizard can neglect Knowledge skills.
You can neglect Knowledge skills if all your interested in doing is playing a piece of paper with numbers written on it inserted within a game that focuses solely on combat. In a game where there is roleplaying going on that uses skill checks to determine whether or not you have knowledge of a specific subject, knowledge skills are necessary and helpful.
No you don't, that show was canceled years ago.You must have me confused.
...TOZ is an Emiya?!
Also ... Any given knowledge could be absolutely crucial in a given campaign - that is completely up to the GM ...
To be more precise: if as a party knowledges are dumped you have made damn sure that I am going to include places where knowledges would make thing much easier and where their lack hurts. You, as a player or the party as players made a choice to 'dump' knowledges to buff up something else; thats a tradeoff and the price of a tradeoff will be paid.
|
|
So much this. I'll also add that if I have extra skill points I just stick them in knowledges because I'm bound to get something out of it. Not only does not taking knowledges not make you an automatic munchkin, you're more likely to take them if you are one.
Yes, there's a fine line between "I've taken some knowledge skills to represent my hobbies and interests.", and "I've taken some knowledges, so the GM can't stop me flipping through the Bestiary during combat.".
There's also only so much Knowledge one needs, to represent a knowledgable person.
For all but the skill-starved classes, I tend to put a rank in every knowledge, early on, to represent a breadth of general knowledge that one would get from a rounded education (schooled or streetwise), and because I hate having artificial (DC10) caps put on what I know.
That was easier to carry off, straight out the gate, in 3.5, given the (x4) skill ranks at first level; in PF, I work at purchasing the essentials for the class (arcana for wizards, nature for druids, religion for clerics), an extra one or two for side hobbies, and sprinkle in a few more as I level.
Given the assumptions of most settings are that most people are NPC Commoners, and/or low level, you only need 3 or 4 ranks in any given skill, to be considered more competent than 90% of the population.
The wizard is by design a highly educated scholar. He should have a few knowledge skills and not neglect them.
If that is indeed the design, then the implementation in the rules failed miserably. Paizo did everything in their power to ensure that wizards didn't do that: removing 1/2 progression and max ranks for cross-class skills; leaving Int governing bonus skills and putting no limitations on what those skills are; removing Concentration as a skill tax. The rules actively encourage wizards to max out Acrobatics, Perception, and Spellcraft, and use the rest for things like Disable Device so you don't need a rogue.
If, as you say, that's "munchkin" behavior, then why did Paizo do everything they could to encourage it?
What exactly does putting a few points into Knowledge get you?
The most common use for Knowledge is identifying monsters. So if you are level 10 and put 2 points in the proper Knowledge, +3 for class, +7 for Int that is +14 vs. a DC 20 for a non-common, non-rare critter.
Great! There is a good chance you will know one or two things, maybe three things if you roll a 18 or higher. You also have a 35% to know nothing. If it is a rare critter your chance of knowing nothing goes up to 60%.
If you had maxed it you would always know at least one thing and more likely know 2 or 3 up to a max of 5 things if you roll a 20. Even rare critters you would know something about unless you rolled a 1.
Edit: I am not saying it is being a munchkin if you max Knowledge skills or not, or if you don't get them at all. Just pointing out that it is an advantage to max your Knowledge skills for some things.
Personally I like to make my wizards "knowledge monkeys". I will let the rogue, ranger or whatever do all the dangerous scouting and trapfinding. I may help them with an invisibility (on them obviously, not on me), but they can go do the actual work. I completely embrace the "God Wizard" role.
All the while not filling your real role. I guess no one wanted to play a bard?
You are seeing it wrong. It IS filling his role, which is being a skill monkey. He just have extra resources to spare, while the rogue does not.
A party of 4, with, say:
a Druid, in the fighter role
a Wizard, in the rogue's role
a Cleric, in the cleric's role
a Sorcerer, in the sorcerer's role
will be able to do everything a party of Fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard do... plus a TON of other things, for free, thanks to the Druid doing the Martial Tanky Fighty archetype, and the Wizard doing the Roguey Skill Monkey archetype.
Same goes with a party of Magus, Inquisitor, Oracle and Witch, or Summoner, Alchemist, Bard and Wizard. All of them can put a guy in the Fighter/Rogue spots, that can fill the Fighter/Rogue niche perfectly (often exceeding them at it), AND bring extra stuff in adition
I'm currently taking a stab at the God Wizard in PFS. Level 3 right now. The parties I end up with complain that I'm not doing more, suppose they expected a blaster. Out of combat I pick up the slack for missed Knowledge/Spellcraft checks and knowing all the popular languages. In combat I typically hang back and watch the party charge head long into battle, saving the game changing spells for when brute force fails. There's plenty I can do at level 3 to make encounters go more smoothly, but I don't tend to get much in the way of cooperation. I'm enjoying it if only for the RP challenge of playing a more reserved Deist's God Wizard. I've taken to playing him like Gene Wilder's unenthusiastic Willy Wonka, "Stop. Don't. Come back."
I've been giving more thought to the Blockbuster Wizard since reading that guide. I don't know though. I'm the only one in my area doing the Wizard thing, one of few doing the Arcane caster thing. Doesn't seem like too much incentive for that in PFS, but I'm bidding time for some of those higher level spells & metamagic.