| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a fair bit of discussion on this, and even talk back and forth with both sides claiming RAI, so I'm hoping to get some clarification.
The current PFS guide (4.1 at the time of writing), on page 20, states the following:
"Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario
that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when
the scenario does."
I'm assuming that the main reason for this is because otherwise a player wizard with such spells could cast them on other pathfinders for just the material cost (or on his own gear), and thereby saving a (possibly unfair) amount of gold.
I actually didn't give this any real thought until I was working on a new player character - as a flavour item, this character wants an item with a continual flame spell cast on it. Would the "by a PC" in the above rule mean that I could pay for the normal NPC spellcasting services once to get this item done (since it's not torch-shaped and as such cannot legally be an ever-burning torch, nor is it in orbit, so it can't be an ioun stone), or would I essentially be forced to pay the 110gp to have the spell cast at the start of each and every scenario that I play?
If it's the latter, I think the guide needs to update its wording since the rule specifically calls out spells cast by player characters (something that I only noticed today when double checking it for my new character).
Well, if you can't then you can't, and I'd just have to find some other game before I could play this particular character since it wouldn't work in PFS.
What bothers me is really that it's so unclear. By the specific wording of the rules as written, I see nothing that prohibits it since the rule specifically calls out the player character casting the spells.
But I can also see how it might just be unclearly written, so honestly I'd like to just see the rules written more clearly and given an official answer so it's not something that has to be decided by each individual GM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the item in question is a weapon, remember that
Light Generation: Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell. These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. Such a weapon can't be concealed when drawn, nor can its light be shut off. Some of the specific weapons detailed below always or never glow, as defined in their descriptions.
Just say that your weapon glows like 30% of weapons and describe it as flickering with holy/unholy/arcane licks of flame. The only mechanical difference that I can think of is that it would not illuminate magical darkness. Even in PFS, there are ways to get the flavor that you want.
Part of the reason the spells end is because there is no tracking of the passage of time between scenarios, even if those scenarios take place in completely different parts of the world. So if this rule did not exist, it would possible to cast a spell at the end of one scenario that would still be active at the start of the next. As for spells that create something permanent without the need to buy the item, those end, probably, so that the wealth balance is not thrown off. Why should a caster be able to make a bunch of free magic torches, while a non-caster has to spend gold for the same thing?
|
Alenander_Damockes, This IMO Is anohter poorly thought out rule. I Player A buys a scroll of restortation with his megar gold that he risked his life for and uses it after he is mauled by a ghost and looses some negitive levels is it the concenses that if he used the scroll in the mddle of the senario that the Restoration spell would end
at the end of thee senario and he would again gain the negitive levels
he got form his encounter with the ghost?
An even better example a Paladin with the Ultimate Mercy feat {SLA} uses it on another Pathfinder that has gotten himself killed in the middle of the senariowould the Pathfinder who died drop over dead at the end of the senario because of stating that magic cannot carry over between scenarios?
THe Rule is stupid and needs to be done away with IMO it is an artifact of the inane crafting rules and trying to balance crafting in a world where high level magic bends all sorts of rules. Magic is magic and should always work unlees cast in amagic dead zone unless you are in the mana wastes Magic should always work over stupid rules that try to balance a game in a Magic world.
|
|
I Player A buys a scroll of restortation with his megar gold that he risked his life for and uses it after he is mauled by a ghost and looses some negitive levels is it the concenses that if he used the scroll in the mddle of the senario that the Restoration spell would endat the end of thee senario and he would again gain the negitive levels he got form his encounter with the ghost?
That's not a good example of the point you're trying to illustrate. Restoration has a duration of "instantaneous"; it's cast, it has its effect (i.e., removing the negative levels), and the magic is gone.
Even under PFS rules, in which ongoing spell effects end at the end of the scenario, this wouldn't change the fact that the Restoration has already removed your PC's negative levels, because Restoration (or Raise Dead, or, for that matter, any healing spells) is not an ongoing spell effect. It causes a permanent change in the PC's condition instantaneously upon being cast, and then the spell is done.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It goes against us too though, if Blind is cast on me at the end of a scenario, that doesn't just end. We get negatives from this rule, and not positives, unless I am mistaken.
Altus, it depends on who casts the spell. If the spell was cast on you by another Player Character, then it ends. (Although blindness/Deafness is dismissable, so it's not the best example.)
For the purposes of this discussion, let's ignore the ban on PvP in Pathfinder Society. Let's say that your PC wanted to experience the effects of Filth Fever, for some role-playing reason. Let's say another player character cast contagion, and your PC got sick. At the end of the scenario, your PC would be restored to full health.
The campaign coordinators have been vague about NPCs hired by PCs to cast spells. If my PC attempted to hire an NPC cleric to cast contagion on your PC, then either (a) the NPC would always refuse, for any amount of money, or else (b) your PC would be restored to full health at the end of the scenario.
That's the way Pathfinder Society works.
|
|
I Player A buys a scroll of restortation with his megar gold that he risked his life for and uses it after he is mauled by a ghost and looses some negitive levels is it the concenses that if he used the scroll in the mddle of the senario that the Restoration spell would endat the end of thee senario and he would again gain the negitive levels he got form his encounter with the ghost?That's not a good example of the point you're trying to illustrate. Restoration has a duration of "instantaneous"; it's cast, it has its effect (i.e., removing the negative levels), and the magic is gone.
Even under PFS rules, in which ongoing spell effects end at the end of the scenario, this wouldn't change the fact that the Restoration has already removed your PC's negative levels, because Restoration (or Raise Dead, or, for that matter, any healing spells) is not an ongoing spell effect. It causes a permanent change in the PC's condition instantaneously upon being cast, and then the spell is done.
Debatable. Masterwork transformation is an instantaneous spell (duration permanent), but its effects end at the end of the scenario. It's kind of a grey area at the moment.
If the item in question is a weapon, remember that
Light Generation: Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell. These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. Such a weapon can't be concealed when drawn, nor can its light be shut off. Some of the specific weapons detailed below always or never glow, as defined in their descriptions.Just say that your weapon glows like 30% of weapons and describe it as flickering with holy/unholy/arcane licks of flame. The only mechanical difference that I can think of is that it would not illuminate magical darkness. Even in PFS, there are ways to get the flavor that you want.
Sadly, the item in question isn't a weapon, so I'm out of luck for that. =/
To be honest, I don't care one bit about it dispelling magical darkness, it's entirely a visual/flavour deal.
Part of the reason the spells end is because there is no tracking of the passage of time between scenarios, even if those scenarios take place in completely different parts of the world. So if this rule did not exist, it would possible to cast a spell at the end of one scenario that would still be active at the start of the next. As for spells that create something permanent without the need to buy the item, those end, probably, so that the wealth balance is not thrown off. Why should a caster be able to make a bunch of free magic torches, while a non-caster has to spend gold for the same thing?
I'm aware of this. If you read the original post carefully, I was talking about the spell being cast by an NPC, since the rule about permanent/instant spells in the PFS guide specifically calls out spells being cast by a PC.
Also, technically the magic torches wouldn't be free for the caster either - it costs 50gp of material components if you cast it yourself, and 110gp if you have an NPC cast it for you (the 50gp for materials, and 10*2*3gp to have a second level spell cast by a third level caster).
110gp also happens to be the exact cost of an ever burning torch, which really is just a stick with the spell cast on it, and that doesn't run out at the end of the scenario either.
|
|
Part of the reason the spells end is because there is no tracking of the passage of time between scenarios, even if those scenarios take place in completely different parts of the world. So if this rule did not exist, it would possible to cast a spell at the end of one scenario that would still be active at the start of the next. As for spells that create something permanent without the need to buy the item, those end, probably, so that the wealth balance is not thrown off. Why should a caster be able to make a bunch of free magic torches, while a non-caster has to spend gold for the same thing?I'm aware of this. If you read the original post carefully, I was talking about the spell being cast by an NPC, since the rule about permanent/instant spells in the PFS guide specifically calls out spells being cast by a PC.
Also, technically the magic torches wouldn't be free for the caster either - it costs 50gp of material components if you cast it yourself, and 110gp if you have an NPC cast it for you (the 50gp for materials, and 10*2*3gp to have a second level spell cast by a third level caster).
110gp also happens to be the exact cost of an ever burning torch, which really is just a stick with the spell cast on it, and that doesn't run out at the end of the scenario either.
Currently, you *can* have an NPC cast a spell and have it last. However, the campaign managers have asked that you not do this, as it is a loophole they intend to close in the next edition of the guide to organized play.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Columbus
|
actually what the NPC is doing is making you a magic item. It is basically made the exact same as the everburning torch--just a different shape. he is not casting continual flame on you--but on an object. an NPC casting water breathing on you and making it permanent should be illegal---making the item should not.
Currently, you *can* have an NPC cast a spell and have it last. However, the campaign managers have asked that you not do this, as it is a loophole they intend to close in the next edition of the guide to organized play.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a source on this? The last things I found on it was from September or so of last year (and inconclusive, to be honest), and it wasn't changed in the 4.1 guide in January which would make sense if it was slated to change back in September.
actually what the NPC is doing is making you a magic item. It is basically made the exact same as the everburning torch--just a different shape. he is not casting continual flame on you--but on an object. an NPC casting water breathing on you and making it permanent should be illegal---making the item should not.
That's basically what I'm trying to get a clarification on. =)
And making water breathing permanent would definitely be illegal under PFS rules, due to this ruling:
The following spells found in the Core Rulebook are not legal for play and may never be used, found, purchased, or learned in any form by PCs playing Pathfinder Society scenarios: awaken, permanency, and reincarnate.
As you see, spells like Permanency and Reincarnate are completely banned and cannot be used by the PCs no matter what. What I'm trying to get a clarification on is the rule in the next paragraph, which states that any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario ends with the scenario, even if instantaneous and permanent, giving continual flame as one of the examples.
It's that "cast by a PC" that seems to be the source of confusion, I suppose.
|
|
Currently, you *can* have an NPC cast a spell and have it last. However, the campaign managers have asked that you not do this, as it is a loophole they intend to close in the next edition of the guide to organized play.Just out of curiosity, do you have a source on this? The last things I found on it was from September or so of last year (and inconclusive, to be honest), and it wasn't changed in the 4.1 guide in January which would make sense if it was slated to change back in September.
Its from both Mark Moreland and Mike Brock. I don't have the exact quote handy, I'm sure someone with greater Search-fu can find it tomorrow.
|
I'm certainly not an expert, but my understanding has always been that the intent was to rule out any non-standard magic items. That is consistent with no crafting, no Permanency, no re-skinning of animal companions, etc. Stick to what's n the book. As cool as character development and RPing is, society play demands a fair amount of conformity to a narrower set of option just because a smidge of variation taken by tens of thousands of players creates havoc. But, again, not an expert opinion.
I'm certainly not an expert, but my understanding has always been that the intent was to rule out any non-standard magic items. That is consistent with no crafting, no Permanency, no re-skinning of animal companions, etc. Stick to what's n the book. As cool as character development and RPing is, society play demands a fair amount of conformity to a narrower set of option just because a smidge of variation taken by tens of thousands of players creates havoc. But, again, not an expert opinion.
I agree with you on the principle of non-standard magic items, though I don't really see how that would apply for this - why even have a separate ruling and not just ban continual flame etc in the first rule?
Anything that would be a useful magic item is already covered by the Permanency ban as far as I can tell.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Columbus
|
a +2 mithril BP sized for a small creature is not in the book either--but you can have it made. everburning torch is in the game--which is basically what this is. Now from what alexander said--Ie they plan on changing it so an NPC cant cast permanent things like continual flame--then they will spell that out. Until then only continual flame cast by a PC (not npc) would expire. Of course your local GM can make his own rules or simply apply the DM stick and have dispel magic cast on it.
once they do make the rule that NPC spells dont extend--things will get interesting. It will see how they clarify that to allow the magic items they currently do allow. Want that bag of holding?--sorry NPC cast spells only last one scenario. I see the reason to not let PC spells continue. It stops people from collaborating to equip each others characters and would be hard to track on chronicles.
|
OneSoulLegion
I think Continual Flame is an unfortunate casualty in the greater scheme. Try to look at it from a different angle:
a) Do permanent spells open a can of worms in regard to chaining together unintented use cases? I bet they do.
b) Can you leave it to the GM to rule individually what is a valid use and what isn't? Unfortunately you can't in PFS.
Any simple alternative apart of a ban (the current solution) or micromanaging each individual spell / situation?
Feel free to suggest a solution.
|
Thod, part of the problem is that, while crafting in general is banned, crafting in a specific case is allowed (arcane bonded items), which includes the crafter being allowed to make non-standard items.
But the ban on crafting currently in effect also disallows items used as examples of things that can be made (Ring of Protection +2 with Invisibility).
But the control on PC-cast spells ending at the end of the scenario is a bit ... indefinite.
Did my 11th level PC die at the end of Blood Under Absolom because the Raise Dead that was used on him earlier in the scenario was cast by another PC? Is the Scroll of Raise Dead, the two scrolls of Restoration, and the 7,000 GP worth of diamond dust he owns and carries with him a waste of money because, if used by a PC, the recipient dies again at the end of the scenario when PC cast spell effects, even instantaneous ones (Continuous Flame is explicitly called out as ending), end?
Wizards who take an Arcane Bonded item are already going to be ahead of the WbL curve, even before they start enchanting it. Afterwards? Whee.
|
|
Callarak
You make the same mistake as many posters before. All spells with Duration instantaneous will last. Raise Dead is instantaneous. raise Dead and similar spells like Cure Light Wounds, etc. are not effected by the current ruling even if this is brought up here again and again.
To reiterate: ALL spells with duration instantaneous do carry over. These are the cure, resurrection, etc.
So which spells are actually affected then? Spells that end are spells that have a duration that is longer as the end of the scenario:
Here is a list of examples that have a limited or permanent duration and therefore end (not taking any spell with duration <24 hours - just looking alphabetical through CRB):
Animal Messanger - Duration 1 day/level
This spell ends at the end of a scneario. This is even the case for a two parter like Bloodcove Disguise which you would assume carries on straight away.
Arcane Mark - duration Permanent - it will end. This would likely fall into the category of spells that shouldn't be banned if you go spell by spell.
Astral Projection - Duration see text (might be ruled out as level 9 spell ...)
Baleful Polymorph - duration permanent
Now we have the first spell that is level wise in reach for PFS play and might have misuse potential.
Bestow Curse - duration permanent (not sure why you would want a curse on yourself - but ...)
Binding - duration see text - (a level 8 - so unlikely to be ever used in normal play - but surely there are interesting uses of the spell).
Blindness/Deafness - duration permanent
Charm Monster - 1 day per level
Now we are hitting pay dirt. Lets get a NPC caster to charm me a monster and I take it into the next adventure.
Charm Monster Mass - 1 day per level - likely too high
Command Plants - 1 day / level
Command Undead - 1 day / level
Nice. powerful level 2 spell. This is likely the spell that sparked the ruling. You can use it during a scenario but you will lose control at the end of the scenario.
Contingency - 1 day/level
This would be the ideal spell to cast as the last action in a scenario if it would carry on.
Continual Flame - permanent
In my view harmless and a victim to stop other spells on the list.
------------
So - I'm just through to 'C' and only looked at the CRB. I don't think I would want a list of all spells with yes/no allowed/disallowed.
|
|
Callarak
You make the same mistake as many posters before. All spells with Duration instantaneous will last. Raise Dead is instantaneous. raise Dead and similar spells like Cure Light Wounds, etc. are not effected by the current ruling even if this is brought up here again and again.
To reiterate: ALL spells with duration instantaneous do carry over. These are the cure, resurrection, etc.
Buzz. Incorrect. What is the duration on Animate Dead? That spell has an instantaneous duration, but is definitely called out as NOT extending past the end of the module.
There, indeed, sits a spell that says that instantaneous is not the panacea you seem to believe it is.
==================================================
On a side note, how do you handle damage on an eidolon after a scenario ends? Do you wave your hand and claim that any eidolon will start a scenario/module fully healed, or do you have the damage carry over unless it is healed at the end of the previous scenario/module?
Thod: I would be fine with that ruling as a necessary evil.
The problem, though, is that this is not what the PFS rules say. The current rules (4.1) say that all spells end, even if instantaneous or permanent, if they are cast by a PC.
As such, no matter what the official ruling ends up, it needs to be written more clearly.
|
|
Callarek
Yes - you are right. I shouldn't tell other people to read the wording of the rules and then not do so myself and assume I know what they say. I wasn't aware that some instantaneous spells also end. On the other hand - Create Undead is specifically spelled out as an example and I missed that it has an instantaneous duration in the spell descriptot.
Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the scenario does. For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends, the bless spell ends at the conclusion of the scenario. This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent duration, such as continual flame, create undead, or fabricate.
My undertanding is that the whole rule is a (imperfect) way to disallow crafting via magic. It is never intended to stop spells like Raise Dead and I never heard about a GM applying it this way.
Off course - 'such as' gives rise to discussions here.
|
|
Thod: I would be fine with that ruling as a necessary evil. The problem though is that this is not what the PFS rules say. The current rules say(4.1) say that all spells en, even if instantaneous or permanent, if they are cast by a PC.
As such, no matter what the official ruling ends up, it needs to be written clearly.
Just had an interuption of my network ... Suprising that the above post was still in memory.
I think I slowly get where the disconnect comes from.
I read the first paragraph as outlining any spell with a finite duration. This includes ALL spells with finite.
It then goes on and adds some examples of spells with duration instantaneous and permanent 'such as'. The notion that every spell with instantaneous would fall under this rule would just not work.
But I understand how you can read it this way.
Thod:
First of all, sorry if my previous post was a little badly written. Mobile phones and all... =)
Secondly, I agree that not all instant spells would be included (like raise dead, healing spells, and so forth), ruling it as such feels like playing the devil's avocado (delicious but wrong!). But that is just the problem, the rule as is really isn't clearly written enough, as can be seen by the various arguments (also look up the discussions about Masterwork Transformation, another instantaneous spell).
Or rather, the rule as written would allow spells cast by an NPC to persist and thereby cause less trouble, but there are also many people who say that this is not RAI. So no matter what, the rule simply doesn't seem clear enough.
Currently, the rule is divided into two parts.
One of them is very clear: Three spells are expressly banned - reincarnate, permanency and awaken. These can NEVER be used in any way in PFS.
The second part is the one that has gotten all the kerfuffle about it - it states that any spells cast by a PC will end when the scenario ends, even if they have instantaneous or permanent duration.
The unclear part is really connected to that "by a PC" part, as far as I can see (there are also those who argue that the ruling as a whole could do with being changed, but that's beside the point for the moment). Since the spells are clearly not banned (if they were, they'd be covered by the first rule), then what is the purpose of this?
Is it reduced book keeping? If so, why have that "by a PC" as part of the rules text?
Is it a case of monetary balance? If so, the "by a PC" would make sense - the spells are still available freely to anyone who can pay for the spellcasting services, and everyone pays the same amount. It just means that players can't do it themselves (or have other party members do it) to save on the spellcasting services fee (spell level * caster level * 10gp)
As for a solution - the problem with that is that I simply don't know the designers' intent. The best solution I could find is to post about it, mark as a FAQ candidate, and hope to get official word from Paizo on this.
Thod: About the list of spells you listed above. Since it can easily be assumed that there can be weeks or months between PFS scenarios, I think the only spells that could even be considered relevant to the discussion are instantaneous spells with lasting effects and permanent spells. Any spells with days/level could easily be assumed to have ended since you could simply assume more than that has gone by.
|
|
Kyle
F is after C - I didn't get that far.
But in reply to Baleful Polymorph
You open up a very interesting area - does baleful polymorph end if cast deliberately. Actually the only time I have encountered this spell so far was when my porter was polymorphed into a small monkey.
We had been travelling and his wisdom (?) got down to zero - making him a big burden. Wasted Sphere of Protection on him ... Kept him alive but useless ...
A friendly NPC who guided us to the next encounter was so friendly to cast the spell to make transport of the porter less of a burden.
Did we resolve it at the end of the scenario - no.
Would it have been a problem?
Was it handled in the right way?
Is there a difference if you cast it with the intend to be useful or harmful. Just assume you cast it on a toad familiar because you want the benefits of a toad but not the downside (form) and have it transformed into a raven shape.
As the benefits are 'sepcial abilities' - would you still get the benefits from a toad or would they be of a raven ...
Fun what you can do with the rules ...