I looked into this a while back and as much as infinite Murderous Command would be awesome, as it was stated by the creators it wasn't their intention for things to work in this matter, it's not legal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ross: I don't care either way about ASCII art (so long as it's spoilered and not offensive), but it's not against any of the listed policies in the FAQ. If you're going to be removing it, you probably should add it to the list there.
Wow, didn't know that was against the rules...
A strange rule, that's for sure. Probably made up on the spot?
A strange rule, that's for sure. Probably made up on the spot?
Why is it strange?
I always had the impression the reduced spell level for metamagic feats was never supposed to bring them below the level of the actual spell itself, that is 0.
Jason has confirmed this.
I doubt it is a made up on the spot, as Jason doesn't seem to the type to wing it when talking about rules. Also, when there were unintended consequences in the past, he has stated that the design team would have to take another look at it - which isn't the case here.
A strange rule, that's for sure. Probably made up on the spot?Why is it strange?
I always had the impression the reduced spell level for metamagic feats was never supposed to bring them below the level of the actual spell itself, that is 0.
I guess the strange rule he's talking about might be the one about the ASCII grafics.
But I could be wrong.
I think so as well, I wasn't aware you couldn't post ASCII art here, though admittedly, I've never seen anyone post any either. I posted mine as a joke, but it's apparently against the rules.
Yeah I meant the ASCII art. I'm all for Jason's ruling.
Just to confirm, I'm assuming this applies to Wayang Spell Hunter trait as well?Hey there Folks,
Magical Lineage was never intended as a way for you to actually lower a spell's level. It was put in to allow you to reduce the increase from a metamagic feat. So, no unlimited magic missiles. I will see to it that the language of this ability is clarified soon and I will get this added to the FAQ.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Haha, yes, I'm sure if Magical Lineage wasn't designed for that kind of abuse, I'm sure Wayang Spell Hunter is treated the same way. (No making a spell go below its actual level. Ever.)
Also; huzzah! If this makes the FAQ, we can stop a new thread from starting once a week or so. >_>
Also; huzzah! If this makes the FAQ, we can stop a new thread from starting once a week or so. >_>
It'll still happen. We can just slap it down faster.
They do in fact stack. It's on a post somewhere here on the board. The argument was that they don't provide any kind of bonus, named or otherwise, and also come from two different categories of trait, magic(magical lineage) and regional(wayang spellhunter). I don't see any problem with that IMO. As a DM if you had a player that dedicated himself that fully to one spell it would be easy as pie to balance. Resistances, immunities, spell turning, etc are all easy options to challenge a character like that. So both at once... No prob IMO.
Wow can I play in your game? I would LOVE a 10d6 cantrip.
|
An Armour Check Penalty is a negative number. There are things that reduce the penalty, like making out of mithral for example.
So, I make a chain shirt (ACP -2) out of mithral (reduces penalty by 3) and end up with a mithral shirt with an ACP of +1? ADDING +1 to Str and Dex based skills; even adding +1 to my attack rolls if I'm not proficient in light armour? Right?
Wrong! A reduction of a penalty in this game may reduce that penalty to zero, but it never becomes a bonus!
The Magical Lineage trait reduces the increase in spell slot due to applying metamagic feats, but reducing an increase cannot result in an actual decrease; it can eliminate the increase (to zero) but it doesn't become a decrease.
I was searching and couldn't find it. Was this ruling ever added to any Faq or reprinted with this errata applied to it?
I was searching and couldn't find it. Was this ruling ever added to any Faq or reprinted with this errata applied to it?
Reprinted.
Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell’s final adjusted level.
Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell that add at least 1 level to the spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell’s final adjusted level.
Emphasis added.
And they do very occasionally FAQ the splat books. On the "Help" page, see the section for "Golarion Rules and Questions".
Hardcovers tend to be generic rules and are purchased more, with more content. So they got the most focus.
As it stands none are getting updates so its moot anyways.
Huh. I've been using "splatbooks" as a general term for anything that isn't the DMG or PHB for over 20 years. This is the first time I've heard anyone suggest that's not what it means. But it does make sense.
It seems that there actually is a difference between D&D and Pathfinder as to what is a splatbook. For D&D, anything that is not an adventure or one of the core rulebooks is a splatbook. For Pathfinder, anything in the Player Companion or Campaign Setting lines is a splatbook. Does that seem right to everyone else?
|
It seems that there actually is a difference between D&D and Pathfinder as to what is a splatbook. For D&D, anything that is not an adventure or one of the core rulebooks is a splatbook. For Pathfinder, anything in the Player Companion or Campaign Setting lines is a splatbook. Does that seem right to everyone else?
For me the difference has always been Hard/Soft cover books for PF as to what I consider "splat" content. The editing and writing teams for the different lines aren't by any means BAD at what they're doing, but it's clear to me the Hardcover books get more love and attention in the testing and writing process.
But would you consider Inner Sea Races or Inner Sea Gods not to be splat books even since they are hardbacks? They are both in the Campaign Setting line, not the main rulebook line.
And apparently the Campaign Setting line is expected to become all hardbacks for PF2.