Potential Shocking Grasp as a Level 0 spell?


Rules Questions

101 to 129 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post and the replies to it. No ASCII art, please. Use your words.


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 Byers wrote:
I removed a post and the replies to it. No ASCII art, please. Use your words.

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?

Dark Archive

YAY!!!! Clarification has been given....THANKS JASON!!!!!


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Grimmy wrote:
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.


Mistwalker wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
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.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

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

Just to confirm, I'm assuming this applies to Wayang Spell Hunter trait as well?


Aaron Rabinowitz wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

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

Just to confirm, I'm assuming this applies to Wayang Spell Hunter trait as well?

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. >_>


The Chort wrote:


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.

The Exchange

An Editor's Note box has been added to Magical Lineage but until Jason or someone else confirms it applies to Wayang Spellhunter we'll wait to add a similar note there. We need to have a source to link to so people don't think we're making stuff up on our own :)


Tallkid wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

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?


shadowkras wrote:
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.

original Magical Lineage wrote:
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.


There is also an FAQ for it.

FAQ wrote:

Magical Lineage (trait): Can I use this trait to adjust a spell's effective level below the unmodified spell's original level?

No. For example, it won't allow you to alter a wizard's fireball into 2nd-level spell.

Wayang unfortunately will likely never be FAQ'd because it's from a splat book, and they don't FAQ splat books.


willuwontu wrote:

There is also an FAQ for it.

FAQ wrote:

Magical Lineage (trait): Can I use this trait to adjust a spell's effective level below the unmodified spell's original level?

No. For example, it won't allow you to alter a wizard's fireball into 2nd-level spell.

Wayang unfortunately will likely never be FAQ'd because it's from a splat book, and they don't FAQ splat books.

why dont they FAQ splat books? they're new rules they themselves wrote.....


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.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

And they do very occasionally FAQ the splat books. On the "Help" page, see the section for "Golarion Rules and Questions".


Cavall wrote:

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.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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?

Liberty's Edge

David knott 242 wrote:

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.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.


Themetricsystem wrote:
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.

Ultimate Wilderness, Reeeeeeee.

Liberty's Edge

willuwontu wrote:
Ultimate Wilderness, Reeeeeeee.

Touché.

101 to 129 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Potential Shocking Grasp as a Level 0 spell? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.