|
I had a question about the Planar Ally line of spells in PFS.
The spell description reads:
By casting this spell, you request your deity to send you an outsider (of 6 HD or less) of the deity's choice. If you serve no particular deity, the spell is a general plea answered by a creature sharing your philosophical alignment. If you know an individual creature's name, you may request that individual by speaking the name during the spell (though you might get a different creature anyway).
Are there any restrictions on what outsiders can be called by a player in PFS? What about templated creatures (for example, the Celestial template reads that a creature with the template can be called by Planar Ally). Could a player therefore request (for example) a Celestial animal or a Half-Celestial Unicorn? Should I as a GM allow basically any reasonable outsider to a player?
I was thinking that I would basically allow the player to call whatever outsider they desired within the limits of the spell, their deity, and alignment, but I was wondering what others had done in a Society environment. I figured that the power of the spells would be balanced by the cost.
Here's a related discussion (dealing with the Call Celestial Ally class feature):
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4481?Call-Celestial-Ally
I believe the official answer from the Campaign Coordinator was "**eyeroll** +1". :-)
But the general tone of the discussion seemed to be that templates are a bit of an iffy subject.
|
Actually, I was discussing this very spell recently, and technically, it wouldn't work for PFS. The reason -- none of the creature in any of the books is stated legal in the Additional Resources. Of course, technically, the same argument could be applied to any Summoning spell, although, we all know that the lists in the CRB are legal per RAI. Just thought that was interesting.
The biggest problem with Planar Ally is that there is a GM adjudication expected as to the payment for said services. What is an "especially hazardous" task vs. just a "normally hazardous" one? Or even a "nonhazardous" one? And what happens if the task changes after the fact? Will you be able to pay the now more expensive fee?
We could always hand-waive the cost as well do that with other requirements in the game, but that makes the spell very cost effective and would result in clerics running around with hordes of archons.
|
|
Assuming an 11th level CN cleric of a CE god, one could summon a glabrezu (highest CR monster of 12HD or less on the planar ally list) and have it cast wish. Note that it is called rather than summoned so it's spells do not automatically end if it goes away and since wish is an SLA it has no material component...
I thought this sort of thing was fixed somewhere in the Pathfinder book but I'm unable to find it at the moment.
|
|
I cast it almost every game I play my 11th level cleric, I pull a Hound Archon. I sacrifice some item we find on our enemies body
Can you clarify how you use the spell a bit? It might help people to adjudicate how it will work in their game.
What are you using the Hound Archon for? Considering the casting time is 10 minutes, it's not really a combat spell. So you have to cast it in advance. Then you have to declare the specific purpose for the contract. If you keep it around for the entire scenario, that would likely be in the long-term task category (6000gp) or at least the mid-term category (3000gp). Either option is relatively expensive for a one-shot consumable. If it is expected to fight in combat, that can easily be considered an especially hazardous task with the archon requesting an even higher payment. Do you actually role-play the negotiation or is it automatic by the GM?
Also, you mention sacrificing items you find on enemies. Does that mean you are delaying the payment to the archon? The spell specifically states the payment must occur prior to the task.
Finally, are you giving the archon the reward/treasure items found during the scenario with the thought that since items are not expended at the end of the scenario those items will still be there for the gold reward on the chronicle? That might apply to consumables, but I'm not sure it applies to permanent items.
|
If you are in Absalom you can't take found gold and spend that on scrolls/ items/ etc, which you then use during the game and expect that gold is still available at the end of the chronicle. The way I see it, this shouldn't be any different. You are spending the gold and it should be deducted from your chronicle sheet.
|
|
Driving an enemy away is equivalent to defeating them, kill or otherwise, so earning the reward is good either way. My concern is that intentionally giving away your treasure has a different feel to it. To be able to use that to cover the material cost of a spell is definitely an edgy thing that would be judged differently from table to table.
Even still, you are still in the 3K-6K cost range. Is you character paying that cost or is it being split between the party? At tier 10-11 that's roughly 40-80% of the entire reward. At lower tiers, it would be all or perhaps more than the reward. Makes casting it every time a bit problematic.
Perhaps your comment of "everytime" was an overstatement. Otherwise, I am not understanding how you can afford it.
Please understand, my main intent by my questions is to find a way for the spell to be viable. As it stands, my understanding of how it works will make it an extremely rare spell with a excessive material cost.
If you are in Absalom you can't take found gold and spend that on scrolls/ items/ etc, which you then use during the game and expect that gold is still available at the end of the chronicle. The way I see it, this shouldn't be any different. You are spending the gold and it should be deducted from your chronicle sheet.
(For reference, here's the wording on using items during a scenario.)
scenario until the end of the scenario, but you must
purchase the item when the scenario is over in order for
your character to be able to continue to use the item. This
rule is most applicable to consumables such as potions,
scrolls, and so on, but also applies to weapons, magic
items, and so on.
While I agree that giving away items in exchange for favours is probably not what was intended, I'm hard pressed to figure out how those words allow you to permanently consume a potion or sunder an item without affecting your treasure amount while simultaneously saying that giving away an item does affect your treasure amount.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are in Absalom you can't take found gold and spend that on scrolls/ items/ etc, which you then use during the game and expect that gold is still available at the end of the chronicle. The way I see it, this shouldn't be any different. You are spending the gold and it should be deducted from your chronicle sheet.
(For reference, here's the wording on using items during a scenario.)
** spoiler omitted **
While I agree that giving away items in exchange for favours is probably not what was intended, I'm hard pressed to figure out how those words allow you to permanently consume a potion or sunder an item without affecting your treasure amount while simultaneously saying that giving away an item does affect your treasure amount.
How is it any different from selling items and buying spell components during a scenarion? Or selling items and buying a scroll?
Why can you trade a +1 flaming longsword for an outsiders service when you can't trade it to a wizard to cast stoneskin on the whole party for the encounter?
I just don't see where being able to trade goods for services from outsiders is ok but trading with real world merchants is not ok.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have let PC's spend just gotten loot money, if they are in city. This would be the same, you are spending your just acquired treasure. This means that at the end you note it on "gold spent". Using a just acquired item worth say 10,000 would mean others can chip in to the cost if they want. At the end of each act, there is a gold piece total for each person based on selling the stuff, so from this I would deduct payment.
How is it any different from selling items and buying spell components during a scenario? Or selling items and buying a scroll?
I give up -- how is it? All of those things seem to be equally allowable (or disallowable) under the rules.
|
|
hogarth, the part we are objecting to is the idea that you can take the treasure you have earned mid-way through the scenario, sell it, buy new stuff, and poof, the original wealth is restored at the end of the scenario. Essentially you get to double-dip some, or most, of your wealth.
The intention of allowing consumables not to be expended during the scenario was so that healing potions, etc could be added to help balance the challenge level of the encounters.
I am completely against the idea that an 11th level character can call a 12 HD ally, owing it 12,000gp in payment, but pay it entirely with "found" treasure without risking max gold at the end.
hogarth, the part we are objecting to is the idea that you can take the treasure you have earned mid-way through the scenario, sell it, buy new stuff, and poof, the original wealth is restored at the end of the scenario. Essentially you get to double-dip some, or most, of your wealth.
You're missing the point.
I understand the intention 100%.
I'm just pointing out that what the Guide says is vague.
There's no way to read that sentence (in isolation from whatever comments people may have made on this message board in the past) and somehow end up with the interpretation that:
(a) if items are permanently destroyed, that doesn't affect your treasure total, and yet
(b) if items are permanently given away, that does affect your treasure total.
It just doesn't say that. That's all I'm trying to say. Do you agree or disagree?
I've always thought it was pretty clear that spending gold or treasure wasn't allowed but apparently it needs to be more specific.I understand the intention 100%.
I'm just pointing out that what the Guide says is vague.
That's a valid interpretation. But then how is drinking a potion not "spending treasure"?
I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but I just don't see the degree of subtlety in those two sentences to realise "Hey, if I give a potion to a hound archon and he drinks it, it doesn't cost me money. But if I give a potion to a hound archon and he doesn't drink it, it does cost me money."
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever price a PC pays to bargain with an outsider needs to be listed as gold spent at the end of the scenario the same as if he had spent real gp out of his amassed wealth. Whether or not the equivalent of that gp value came from his own existing gear, an item found in the scenario, or his cache of coins is immaterial. You cannot use the proposed workaround to get free material components.
This will be clarified in the FAQ as soon as Mike gets back from vacation and we can put together clear language for it that covers all such loopholes.
|
... My 1st and 2nd level guys are more in a fix since they now cant use potions and found scrolls freely (they will cost at the end of an adventure).
That's not what he said.
He didn't say that consuming a chronicle item means you have to pay for it afterwards..
He only said that if during play you give away a chronicle item as payment for a spell cost, THEN you still have to pay for it. Seems that even in this situation, the item will still appear on the chronicle, if you want to buy ANOTHER one to keep.
|
|
If you are in Absalom you can't take found gold and spend that on scrolls/ items/ etc, which you then use during the game and expect that gold is still available at the end of the chronicle. The way I see it, this shouldn't be any different. You are spending the gold and it should be deducted from your chronicle sheet.
(For reference, here's the wording on using items during a scenario.)
** spoiler omitted **
While I agree that giving away items in exchange for favours is probably not what was intended, I'm hard pressed to figure out how those words allow you to permanently consume a potion or sunder an item without affecting your treasure amount while simultaneously saying that giving away an item does affect your treasure amount.
As far as I'm concerned, you can't get something for nothing. If you give the sword away, then you aren't recovering it for treasure. This isn't really using it, its giving it up.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not just this spell that will be clarified. Any time you have a spell requiring an expensive material component, you need to pay for that component. That means if you find 250 gp worth of diamond dust in a dragon's lair, you can use it to cast stoneskin, but you don't magically get that diamond dust for free. It's value comes out of your cut of the loot at the end of the scenario.
If people don't like that spell components are treated differently than consumable magic items, then maybe we need to revisit how found consumable items are handled in the campaign. Regardless of where that discussion goes, spell components have costs for a reason; you can't circumvent that by using a campaign-specific rule meant for a different thing.
|
|
It seems clear to me that the "used consumables don't impact wealth" rule is primarily to avoid party in-fighting over the gold they would represent:
Since the wealth is not divided until the end of the scenario, there would be no way to avoid this. And most often it represents a small fraction of the total wealth gained.
Sundering is also not really applicable, since even magic items destroyed by sunder can be repaired with make whole.
Pay for the spell components, continue to be happy that you don't have to pay for potions you find and drink during a scenario.
|
Sundering is also not really applicable, since even magic items destroyed by sunder can be repaired with make whole.
Amusingly, there was just a debate about this on our regional boards. Here's the issue people have with that statement:
For an item with only an enhancement bonus and no other abilities, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus.
Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item.
The argument is that if you sunder a +1 weapon and don't have a wizard or cleric of at least 6th level along, you have to pay...let's see...2x6x10 = 120gp to have make whole cast or forfeit the total value of the item from your chronicle. If it's a +2 weapon, you have to be level 12 or pay 240 gp, etc. (Please don't post about +4 weapons not being able to be repaired, search for that thread and post in it.) Why should I have to pay for a make whole on MY destroyed longbow, but not on the greatsword I'm "selling" as part of my chronicle wealth gain?
There's a big difference between 6500 gp in payment for a hound archon and 240 gp to have a weapon fixed. The question is where do you draw the line? You do have to pay for the planar ally but not for the make whole? What about drinking a found potion of heroism (750 gp)?
I really don't want to have to do bookkeeping on every little item. I don't know where the line should be. This is one case where I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make this decision.
(For the record my opinion is that sacrificing valuable items for a summon is too much but using consumables is fine. Logically defensible? No. But it makes common sense.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sundering is also not really applicable, since even magic items destroyed by sunder can be repaired with make whole.
They CAN be, yes, but the caster must be at least twice the caster level of the item. That can get a bit dicey for even moderate items. It would be possible that you not only lost the reward value of the item but could be out the cost of the spell service as well. Essentially a net loss.
Personally, I think that if you sunder an item intentionally, that character should lose the value of the item. It was a choice after all and makes more sense than it re-spawning at the end of the scenario. But, then again, I tend towards harsher rules. And I said above, a sundered item is not necessarily lost.
|
|
Sundering is also not really applicable, since even magic items destroyed by sunder can be repaired with make whole.They CAN be, yes, but the caster must be at least twice the caster level of the item. That can get a bit dicey for even moderate items. It would be possible that you not only lost the reward value of the item but could be out the cost of the spell service as well. Essentially a net loss.
I'm afraid you lost me here.
My point was that the majority of items that would be sundered can easily have that condition fixed, at a cost easily in the range of the consumables "allowance".
|
|
If this isn't right, can we get this specifically called out please?
As it stands, sundering is legal. It can be an effective way to counter an enemy's strengths if they have very protective armor, or a strong weapon, even a wand, etc. Since those items are considered part of your treasure, they will not be deducted from the final rewards on the chronicle even though, technically, you would be unable to sell them for cash at the end, like normal.
Even permanent magic items follow the same rules that cover consumables. If you drink a potion, you do not lose its value from the rewards.
Personally, I just don't like that campaign specific rule, but that's what it says. It applies to this thread in the respect that since no treasure is "lost" during the scenario, you can willfully give it away and still have it at the end. So if you earned 12,000gp worth of stuff in act one of the scenario, you could use that wealth to pay the material costs of Planar Ally, call a 12HD archon, and the gold would re-spawn on the chronicle sheet. All I'm saying is that makes no sense whatsoever and smells of moldy cheese. As Mark stated, this was not the RAI.