[Jon Brazer Enterprises] Interested in Words of Power?

[Orthos]

Someone who does the spellbook thing, but rather than the "read every morning and memorize a few passages" like the standard stock wizard, instead someone who can read spells out of the book on the fly, as oft depicted of tome-toting archmages in fantasy - flip to the desired page, find your spell, recite, cast. What better to represent spellcasting from reading directly out of a book than spellcasting designed around assembling words?

[DarkLightHitomi]

I made a homebrew feat to allow a caster to cast out of a spellbook like a scroll but it expends a spellslot and takes a full round action.

[Dexion1619]

Even though I have little use for the fact its undead specific, I need all the WOP stuff I can get for my homebrew game, as it uses WOP. Ill be picking this up.

[Ben Kent]

Count me in, too.

Count me in for pre-templated Words of Power cards, too.

And those "example word spells" seemed like a really good idea.

And Word archetypes for existing classes...

And maybe a Verbomancer base class...! (Lingomancer? Conversationalist...?)

And a "cleanup", on the rules, like you did with "River Kingdoms"...

[Dexion1619]

Words of power template cards? Yes please... More sample spells? You wont need to twist my arm.

I have a feeling that those of us who like/use WoP will buy any quality product you can give us. For the record, this will be my first 3pp purchase.

[Nosferatu]

I'm interested, BUT I have a few questions on your motivations behind why this and that. New Death words would be welcome. Thank you.

1. I find that the idea of using the lowest duration for a spell is, generally speaking, a good thing. For example, spell-word Wrack, or "Anthrax", as I loving call it, is a 1round/cl duration effect word at level 1. I can cast it as a burst, line, or cone, or even a wall, which sickens, until the spell expires, but while that's standard, you can't get much out of Fire Blast and Wrack, together - if that wordspell worked, you would not only place the sickened effect on all targets, but also deal damage in the same turn.
Is your intention to see to players casting spells such as Wrack and Fire Blast to create a Fireball that also sickens, as a level 4 spell? Don't you think that, while the combination seems to suggest it should a full spell-level higher, that being able to combine effects like this is a major action economy advantage? Why, given this rule-change, would I ever NOT cast a spell that deals damage AND provides lasting status effects, for a higher spell cost? Why cast any Barrier, if instead you could use Wind Blast with any instantaneous damage spell, to create a superior effect?
If you change this rule, I feel that the resulting wordspell permutations are going to be far superior in power and effect, than standard spells- which is going against the point of it. Wordspells are a new form of magic, yes, but their principle is being an older, rawer, and less-refined form of casting, than conventional spells. They're meant to be more flexible, and while I find that the damage scales, pretty much on-par (and frankly, its more efficient), adding status ailments on top of them seems over-powered. As a more balanced alternative, why not use Wrack with Blizzard or Fog Cloud, as it already stands to be powerful crowd control?

2. A similar issue with your rationale behind wall spells. Initially, I thought I could use Fire Blast with Barrier to create a wall of fire, that was very powerful, but then I realized that, while I could, it would only last for an instant. However, this isn't a waste. Using Boost Barrier, I could create any path I desire, perhaps, in the form of a zig-zag, snake, or really, creativity is the limit. With Fire Blast, it's literally talking about the ground exploding, and delivering damage to everyone who is standing on the square.
Further more, lets talk damage comparison. Wall of Fire is a standard spell which Fire Wall directly connects. Unlike my criticism with instantaneous spells, spell-word 'Fire Wall' CAN be combined with spell-word Wrack, for a very potent battlefield control spell.
I don't see why Barrier spells are going to be removed, but I might actually suggest allowing words from the Wall group to be cast in conjunction with other Wall group words, then maybe add a couple more Wall group words? A level 7 word 'Iron Wall', in conjunction with Wall of Fire, could resemble level 8 standard spell 'Wall of Lava', but maybe a little stronger. I think this would have to thought about more, than to say "remove!"

In general, I love WoP's flexibility, and rising power, over time. There's barely anything required, except expanding the spell slots into 10th, 11th and further up, to take this class into Epic as it stands. I'd love to hear ideas over the forum on more words coming in to the mix.

[Rashagar]

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Rashagar wrote:

Bit off-topic but:

One thing I really want to do with a Wordcaster is play as one in a long-ish running game purely for the excuse to create physical cards or runes or something to cast with. I just want to cast spells as if I'm casting bones or reading a fortune.

Interesting idea for an archetype. Maybe even a new class. Anybody elese have other ideas for archetypes/prestige classes/new classes that you feel is perfect for a wordcaster.

Might be a funny way to bring the Wild Mage variant into pathfinder. Cobbling together a functioning and hopefully situationally useful spell from a randomized subset of known wordspells. (like drawing a hand of cards or finding a pattern in a thrown handful of runes [like scrabble tiles?]) Would be a very Last Unicorn "magic do as you will" kind of feeling. Like the source of your arcane power is using you rather than the other way around.

[Nosferatu]

Rashagar wrote:

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Rashagar wrote:

Bit off-topic but:

One thing I really want to do with a Wordcaster is play as one in a long-ish running game purely for the excuse to create physical cards or runes or something to cast with. I just want to cast spells as if I'm casting bones or reading a fortune.

Interesting idea for an archetype. Maybe even a new class. Anybody elese have other ideas for archetypes/prestige classes/new classes that you feel is perfect for a wordcaster.

Might be a funny way to bring the Wild Mage variant into pathfinder. Cobbling together a functioning and hopefully situationally useful spell from a randomized subset of known wordspells. (like drawing a hand of cards or finding a pattern in a thrown handful of runes [like scrabble tiles?]) Would be a very Last Unicorn "magic do as you will" kind of feeling. Like the source of your arcane power is using you rather than the other way around.

Ahhh, I always loved Book of Nine's crusader, too; they had abilities which you used from a 'hand' that you 'drew' from a shuffled, self-made deck. I might suggest looking into that concept while you have cards of pre-made wordspells that you want to use. It could work!

[Dexion1619]

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Interesting idea for an archetype. Maybe even a new class. Anybody elese have other ideas for archetypes/prestige classes/new classes that you feel is perfect for a wordcaster.

A sorcerer bloodline seems like an ideal fit. Maybe something like Arcane, but re-crunched to be passed down from an ancient line of mages. Replace Metamagic adept with something more fitting to a wordcaster (like additional metawords/day).

New Wizard discoveries that deal with Metawords would be nice as well.

[Dale McCoy Jr]

Nosferatu wrote:

Is your intention to see to players casting spells such as Wrack and Fire Blast to create a Fireball that also sickens, as a level 4 spell? Don't you think that, while the combination seems to suggest it should a full spell-level higher, that being able to combine effects like this is a major action economy advantage? Why, given this rule-change, would I ever NOT cast a spell that deals damage AND provides lasting status effects, for a higher spell cost? Why cast any Barrier, if instead you could use Wind Blast with any instantaneous damage spell, to create a superior effect?

I'm not going to get into hard commitments at this point (way, WAY too early for that), but my current line of thinking at the moment is that the odd level damage spells be instantaneous damage spells and the even number levels be a lower damage dealing spell but does duration. This is similar to how wall of fire deals much less damage than fireball, despite wall of fire being a higher level spell. This keeps the duration rule in place and allowing for high damage when you need it while allowing for damage spells to be combined with condition spells.

I didn't say that the barrier word should be removed. I mean that the grouping of words of "wall" should be removed. Why should fire wall not be a fire word? And for what reason (other than wall of fire is a vancian spell) can I not make a cone of fire that stays in a place for a while? Or a burst? The wall group each require the spell use the barrier word. Barrier requires it be grounded to a surface. Why can't I have a ball of fire hanging in the air? If a bunch of flying zombies are coming through a hole in the ceiling, why can't I place a duration ball of fire infront of the hole and weaken or eliminate them all? The rules as they stand right now forbid it for no good reason. That's what I want to fix.

[Dexion1619]

Wow... Im trying to cram cash threw my phone, but it isn't working!

[Nosferatu]

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Nosferatu wrote:

...

I'm not going to get into hard commitments at this point (way, WAY too early for that), but my current line of thinking at the moment is that the odd level damage spells be instantaneous damage spells and the even number levels be a lower damage dealing spell but does duration. This is similar to how wall of fire deals much less damage than fireball, despite wall of fire being a higher level spell. This keeps the duration rule in place and allowing for high damage when you need it while allowing for damage spells to be combined with condition spells.

I didn't say that the barrier word should be removed. I mean that the grouping of words of "wall" should be removed. Why should fire wall not be a fire word? And for what reason (other than wall of fire is a vancian spell) can I not make a cone of fire that stays in a place for a while? Or a burst? The wall group each require the spell use the barrier word. Barrier requires it be grounded to a surface. Why can't I have a ball of fire hanging in the air? If a bunch of flying zombies are coming through a hole in the ceiling, why can't I place a duration ball of fire infront of the hole and weaken or eliminate them all? The rules as they stand right now forbid it for no good reason. That's what I want to fix.

Right on, I'm glad that I initially misunderstood you on both counts.

I also said "wall spells" when I meant "wall words" because I thought you were getting rid of all the words in the wall grouping, but I see your intention, now; its a good question, why wall words couldn't be a part of other relevant groupings (which would also allow you to combine such spells for a crude prismatic wall, maybe)! In any case, I think that, already, some effect words with a duration longer than instantaneous, that can be used with non-Barrier, area Target words - such as Cone, Burst or Line - will remain, just as the Barrier would, only playing by the rules of the different target word.

Some examples of words that do similar things:

WIND BLAST (WEATHER):

School evocation [air]; Level druid 2, sorcerer/wizard 3
Duration 1 round
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
Target Restrictions line

^This spell produces a line effect that lasts the entire round. I think it's the only one, thus far, but it would be interesting for it to be a cone as well.

I think that most spells used as a Cone, currently, are instantaneous pulses, which can deliver lasting effects or instant damage, but do not stay on the field. Meanwhile, Burst also specifies that some spells are emanations, which explicitly occupy the area of effect, but "typically", can't be moved, from the area they manifested in. I think this is confusing, as plenty of spells which suggest that they stay on the field, to harass other combatants, are not emanations, such as Caustic Cloud (below). I'm curious how you'd tackle cleaning up that keyword's use, and other target restrictions, so I look forward to your work.

CAUSTIC CLOUD (ACID):

School conjuration (creation) [acid]; Level sorcerer/wizard 7, witch 6
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Fortitude half; Spell Resistance no
Target Restrictions burst
A wordspell with this effect word creates a cloud of noxious green vapor that obscures vision. Creatures caught in the cloud take 1d6 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 20d6) and are fatigued. Creatures caught in the cloud receive a Fortitude save to halve the damage and to negate the fatigued effect. Creatures that remain in the cloud take a cumulative –2 penalty on the save each round they remain in the cloud, but spending just 1 round outside the cloud's area resets this penalty. Creatures in the cloud that are fatigued become exhausted on a failed saving throw. A strong wind, such as that created by a gust of wind, disperses this cloud immediately.

[DarkLightHitomi]

It would be more than a slight change, but personally i would like to see durations be seperate words. It would cut down on total word count and be a bit more versatile with less work.

[Xein]

Heck yes. Count me in on Tuesday! I loved the Words of Power and was always saddened that they basically cancelled them as soon as they were released.

The only thing that keeps me from making a wordcaster now is how underpowered at later levels they seem (Time Stop? Mages Disjunction? Miracle? Silly magictalker you can't do that) as well as how they're almost 100% blaster oriented but don't have the support words that truly makes a blaster terrifying. Force Cage (large with holes)+ Meteor Swarm comes to mind.

Plus the huge shift in power between prepared and spontaneous wordcasters.

When there's only three 9th-level words for a Cleric/Oracle, why would you not be an oracle. Not to mention you can shape your wordspells as needed, while the prepared guys have to hope that the Line-attached Ice Beam will be a better idea than the Cone.

So yes you shall have my money indeed sir. I'm hoping this does well enough to garner further support.

Also since I'm playing a necromancer in our current campaign, I would truly love you if you could keep Undeath without the material cost and the same level. Also hoping that it provides some ability to apply templates (bloody, burning, skeletal champion, etc.) preferably at just a HD requirement. Bloody requires more create HD and so on.

Thanks again!

[Dale McCoy Jr]

Nosferatu wrote:

I'm curious how you'd tackle cleaning up that keyword's use, and other target restrictions...

Short answer: good question.

Long answer: there are a good many questions like this that have not yet begun to ponder how I am going to do it. Best I can say right now involves a confused look and some mumbling.

Maybe I should start sacrificing babies to Orcus now.

[Xein]

I take back the Time Stop bit. For some reason I remember not having it.

Also, have you considered opening up word categories for more module-esque wordcasting?

You choose cleric for domains and sorcerers for bloodlines as normal but since Words are based on versatility, it would be staying true to form, I think.

[Dexion1619]

See, this is one of the down sides to working 3rd shift... I thought today was the 21st...

You know what else I would love to see in a WoP product, more effect words (or even Meta-Words)that inflict various conditions, such as Entangled, Confused, Stunned, Dazed, Dazzled or even Grappled.

Off to sleep, some bright thing in the sky is burning my eyes.

[Nosferatu]

Xein wrote:

Heck yes. Count me in on Tuesday! I loved the Words of Power and was always saddened that they basically cancelled them as soon as they were released.

The only thing that keeps me from making a wordcaster now is how underpowered at later levels they seem (Time Stop? Mages Disjunction? Miracle? Silly magictalker you can't do that) as well as how they're almost 100% blaster oriented but don't have the support words that truly makes a blaster terrifying. Force Cage (large with holes)+ Meteor Swarm comes to mind.

Plus the huge shift in power between prepared and spontaneous wordcasters.

When there's only three 9th-level words for a Cleric/Oracle, why would you not be an oracle. Not to mention you can shape your wordspells as needed, while the prepared guys have to hope that the Line-attached Ice Beam will be a better idea than the Cone.

So yes you shall have my money indeed sir. I'm hoping this does well enough to garner further support.

Also since I'm playing a necromancer in our current campaign, I would truly love you if you could keep Undeath without the material cost and the same level. Also hoping that it provides some ability to apply templates (bloody, burning, skeletal champion, etc.) preferably at just a HD requirement. Bloody requires more create HD and so on.

Thanks again!

Time Stop?It's still here. The other two, no.

I find that spontaneous casters get catch up to wizard-power in terms of casting with WoP, but with a flexibility that is to be envious of, even though they miss out on some awesome effects- I like to play a mix of blasting as well as field control, but the spell I miss most is Stone Shape, and there is no Shaping group.
Also, even if there only three level nine oracle/cleric words and only 5 Sorc/Wiz words, I'd be fine with not filling out my level 9 words-known, since WoP combinations that work up to 9th level slots are a-plenty. Also, level 9 words are sort of... lackluster. They are a bit underwhelming, since they can't be combined. The most flexibility they have is target words and meta words, and for that, all level 9 words are target restricted, but perhaps that's where meta words can show some oomph?

[Richard Moore]

My wife is considering making her next PC a sea witch (for my Razor Coast game), and might make her a wordcaster so we can playtest some ideas. One thing she had interest in was a class archetype that would allow her to sacrifice certain functions of the wizard or witch class in exchange for the ability to swap out effect words in prepared spells.

This would be a pretty clean archetype for a wizard -- it could be subbed out in place of their usual school powers -- but for a witch I can't think of much that could fulfill this function other than replacing hexes or adding new ones. I kind of like the idea of a witch who takes some sort of penalty to her own actions in order to sub out effect words on the fly, though.

The alternative, of course, is to simply tell her to play as a sorcerer and avoid all this trouble, I suppose... but she really wants to play around with hexes! =]

[Orthos]

Richard Moore wrote:

This would be a pretty clean archetype for a wizard -- it could be subbed out in place of their usual school powers -- but for a witch I can't think of much that could fulfill this function other than replacing hexes or adding new ones. I kind of like the idea of a witch who takes some sort of penalty to her own actions in order to sub out effect words on the fly, though.

Trade out Patron spells? Only other option I can think of off the top of my head.

[terraleon]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

It would be more than a slight change, but personally i would like to see durations be seperate words. It would cut down on total word count and be a bit more versatile with less work.

I'm going to point this out, just because.

What we're discussing are the only two words of power you need to do all of this...

Ars. Magica.

It does all of this, right now. Boom. Done. Been done. Still doing it. Won the 2005 Origin Award for best game.

Now the WoP is different, but similar to Ars.

To convert the Pathfinder WoP/magic system into a kissing cousin of Ars is not a small task, but one I think is possible.

-Ben.

[DarkLightHitomi]

Richard Moore wrote:

My wife is considering making her next PC a sea witch (for my Razor Coast game), and might make her a wordcaster so we can playtest some ideas. One thing she had interest in was a class archetype that would allow her to sacrifice certain functions of the wizard or witch class in exchange for the ability to swap out effect words in prepared spells.

This would be a pretty clean archetype for a wizard -- it could be subbed out in place of their usual school powers -- but for a witch I can't think of much that could fulfill this function other than replacing hexes or adding new ones. I kind of like the idea of a witch who takes some sort of penalty to her own actions in order to sub out effect words on the fly, though.

The alternative, of course, is to simply tell her to play as a sorcerer and avoid all this trouble, I suppose... but she really wants to play around with hexes! =]

Do you realize that a prepared caster can leave slots empty and prepare them later? It takes 15 minutes but does help for out of combat or ambushing.

[DarkLightHitomi]

terraleon wrote:

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

It would be more than a slight change, but personally i would like to see durations be seperate words. It would cut down on total word count and be a bit more versatile with less work.

I'm going to point this out, just because.

What we're discussing are the only two words of power you need to do all of this...

Ars. Magica.

It does all of this, right now. Boom. Done. Been done. Still doing it. Won the 2005 Origin Award for best game.

Now the WoP is different, but similar to Ars.

To convert the Pathfinder WoP/magic system into a kissing cousin of Ars is not a small task, but one I think is possible.

-Ben.

Never heard of ars magica. Don't know where to find it either. Personally, i like monty cooks d20 wod magic.

[Nosferatu]

I actually kept bloodline/patron spells in for my caster, because my rationale was that the "words known" represented your normal casting avenues, but your bloodline or patron spells were specific effects granted from a specific source or patron.
To be honest, I enjoy that I have the mix of them, except when the granted spell is sometimes Flaming Hands, which is technically less useful than gaining 'Burning Flash'.

[Xein]

Is Undead Command meant to be SorcWiz only? Because then a cleric won't have a word to add on to Create Undead to control them.

God I hate that there's no permanent Control over intelligent undead. It severely cuts into what would be a good idea to raise.

Also, what are your ideas on template support. How would Create Undead work if you wanted your Skeletal Champion to be Bloody.

[Dexion1619]

I don't see the download? Where did you grab it from?

[Xein]

Had to get it from the pfsrd store. If you got it from there check your email junk folder.

[Dexion1619]

Thanks. Picked it up as well. It looks good, I like how the spells are formatted. I really like the Sunlight Flash word, Bravo on that.

I don't think clerics really need the Undead Command word... I mean, if you're an Evil Cleric that plans to create undead, I would think you would have the Command Undead feat.

Edit: Just noticed Undead Disruption II... I like it!

[Xein]

So a cleric has to blow a feat while a wizard only has to prepare it?

[Dexion1619]

<Shrug> Its the same way with the standard magic system... Instead of looking at it as a "Blown" feat, look at it as a Bonus 7th level spell slot.

Cleric: "Oh, Mr. Shadow, you broke free of my control? (Channels Energy) That's a good boy, back in line."

Wizard (running wildly around tower): "Where's that scroll of Control Undead?!?!?!?."

[Dale McCoy Jr]

I'll be putting up the official announcement in a minute or two, but Book of Magic: 10 Undead Spell Words is now available at d20PFSRD, DriveThru/RPGNow and Paizo.

And to answer your question Xein, Dexion1619 has it right. Both Command Undead and Control Undead are Sorcerer/Wizard only spells so we kept it the same here.

[Xein]

Wow I never noticed that. Thanks for the perspective!

Are things looking well so far, Dale? I considered buying it several times on things but thought that'd be cheating.

I honestly think you just made me want to change my Divine Exemplar to a Juju Oracle with the Words of Power system.

I'm really loving that I can switch saves around for Control Undead or whatever, but it's a fine line. Undead get good Will saves, so just use one of the Meta words to switch to Fort and have a better chance.

I'm almost wishing it still went by the old rules where they'd fail their saves automatically if it specifically targeted undead. Permanent control would be excellent.

Or I could be wrong and that was just constructs. I dunno I'm tired.

[terraleon]

I picked up the tablet version of this and I'm nosing through it. I have a nexus 7 and the page height is a little off, but I think that's because the nexus 7 display is more narrow than others.

Overall, the words are good, the formatting is ...odd, it's not alphabetical by word, or by numerical by level, it's alphabetical by wordset, which is not immediately apparent. A single column option might have been nice, but rotating the tablet is easy enough. ;)

These cover everything I would immediately desire in a wordset for undead, with the possible omission of words to augment the undead, making them stronger, or to provide them templates of some kind. However, the choices made for the binding or command words make the relevant decision obvious.

It is nice to see the whole document made PFC in the S15, though. (And dang, what gave you a S15 that enormous?)

Thanks for this,

-Ben.

[Dexion1619]

Xein wrote:

Are things looking well so far, Dale?

I'm interested as well, clearly we wouldn't expect you to say how many sold, but just a general "Better Then Expected"... "About what I hoped" or the ever dreaded "I want my two dollars!"

[Umbral Reaver]

Orthos wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

(I'm personally of the opinion that limiting the number of spells know alone would have been a good balancing factor against the wizards, the delayed spell progression is unnecessary.)

I have adjusted the spell progression for both Sorcerer and Oracle to be equal to their prepared counterparts in my games and noticed absolutely zero balance issues.

I have done likewise, and over several extended campaigns, noticed that prepared full casters are still better.

[Dale McCoy Jr]

Dexion1619 wrote:

Xein wrote:

Are things looking well so far, Dale?

I'm interested as well, clearly we wouldn't expect you to say how many sold, but just a general "Better Then Expected"... "About what I hoped" or the ever dreaded "I want my two dollars!"

Short answer, it is too early to tell. Some people log on every few days and don't buy on day 1. Other people buy when they get paid (fridays or mid-/end-of-month). Others buy when a Paizo PDF gets released (UCamp gets released on the 28th). Normally, I wait a week before saying it OS going well or not, but with the hardcover's PDF release so close, I'm going to have to hold off until month's end until saying for sure.

[Dale McCoy Jr]

terraleon wrote:

I picked up the tablet version of this and I'm nosing through it. I have a nexus 7 and the page height is a little off, but I think that's because the nexus 7 display is more narrow than others.

I designed it for a 10" tablet (iPad, ASUS Transformer, etc). It might be a bit off for a 7". I'm looking into ePub/kindle (mobi) format so it displays however you want for a tablet, but I'm not there quite yet.

terraleon wrote:

the formatting is ...odd, it's not alphabetical by word, or by numerical by level, it's alphabetical by wordset, which is not immediately apparent.

I followed Paizo's format for the WoP rules. I'm toying around with alternate organization if/when I do a full revision of the rules, but for the time being, I'm going to follow their example.

terraleon wrote:

These cover everything I would immediately desire in a wordset for undead, with the possible omission of words to augment the undead, making them stronger, or to provide them templates of some kind. However, the choices made for the binding or command words make the relevant decision obvious.

*scribbles down notes*

terraleon wrote:

(And dang, what gave you a S15 that enormous?)

It is all Bestiary 1-3 for the tables on what undead you can create. Eliminate those two tables and it would have just been the UM Section 15.

[Dale McCoy Jr]

Dexion1619 wrote:

Edit: Just noticed Undead Disruption II... I like it!

I stopped myself from doing Undead Disruption III-VI (covering odd number levels) and a duration version I-IV (for the evens). I figured that would be cheating for a 10 spell word PDF. ;)

[Orthos]

In the shopping cart with you!

[Thornborn]

Sold. I have no special need for the content, but want to see more WOP, d20PFSRD, and JBE. I guess in this instance, those were the 'words of power'.

[Jim Groves]

I bought it, but I did so to show support for a potential product that cleans and clarifies the main system.

[DankeSean]

For what it's worth, I also bought this less out of interest in the specific wordset offered than in hopes of JBE getting enough buyers that it's deemed viable to take up the wordcasting support gauntlet.
(Nothing against the undead words, mind you, they're nicely done and well in line with the preexisting official rules, it's just not something that any potential wordcaster I'm playing would need. But hey, for $.99? I spend more than that on my daily can of Dr Pepper.)

[Tinalles]

I just bought this, mostly as an upvote for an improved Words of Power system.

I really like the idea of Words of Power. But ... the rule set is complex, making it hard for players to learn, and hard for GMs to adjudicate. Complexity itself is not necessarily bad (I mean, just the CORE rule book for this game runs to hundreds of pages!). It's the fact that it's adding complexity ON TOP of the existing complexity.

There are also a few weirdnesses in there where it doesn't feel like the rules were fully polished. The nerfing of longer-duration effects any time they get combined with a shorter duration effect has been called out already. I also have my eye on the combo "boost selected force bolt", which I wrote up a while ago. By my reading, that basically allows you to create a kind of uber magic missile dealing 5d4 points of force damage per missile AND getting +1 missile per caster level.

Some people in that thread construed "up to one target per caster level" from the Boost description to mean "you can't target any one creature more than once". I acknowledge that as a plausible interpretation of the rules even though it doesn't really make sense to me that a caster with 8 targets and 9 missiles would just not do anything with the remaining one. Certainly the traditional magic missile allows multiple targets.

But I digress! The problem there is that it's not clear, and the very flexibility of the system lends itself to weird corner cases where things are unclear. And I haven't even started thinking about interactions between word spells and vancian spells, which are bound to come up if you're playing at a table with casters from both systems.

[Nosferatu]

@Tinalles, I see where you're coming from, since 'Scorching Ray' is a thing, but it isn't clear to me, where in it's description 'Selected' allows you to double-target any single target, when boosted. Boosting 'Selected' is essentially the same as a "Mass" target cast, similar to casting Cure Light, and then, Cure Light, Mass.

PRD wrote:

Instead of one target, the wordspell affects up to one target per caster level, no two of which can be more than 30 feet apart.

Keywords: "up to".

In this case, Selected spells are similar to a 'Mass' standard spell, except (Edit: no exception, mass spells also have this limit) that there is a restriction on the number of targets, such that if a circle of 15' radius were drawn, and in it, there were X targets, all legitimate for the spell, you may pick Y of them, where Y is your CL. Imagine it as if you were observing a battle through an electronic HUD, and painting each member as "friendly" or "foe", it wouldn't make sense to say "oh, I have room for up to 50 enemies, but there's only 25, so I'm going to save each enemy as 'foe', twice."

Consider that 'Boost Selected Wrack' is a spell that functions pretty much like Slow, except instead of making them slower, you make them sicker.

Now, for the opposite perspective, imagine if there were only one target, and you boosted Selected, when you were, say a CL 10 caster. Your interpretation would give you 10 instances of the spell, and under the "why waste my targets" mantra, you'd could have cast a level 4 spell that dealt 50d4 to a single target.

Ouch.
A little too much, I think.

Contrast:

Scorching Ray explicitly states it's nature:

PRD wrote:

You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

Compare that to the target for Cure Light Wounds, Mass:

PRD wrote:

Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart

This spell does not let you double-tap the cure, simply because there aren't enough targets, it only allows you to paint who is affected, after which, each target is affected once. Conversely, it can be thought of that regardless of how many times you paint the target, they are only affected once.

@Dale, take my money. Would you like my feedback in this thread or via private messages?

[Nosferatu]

Also, just wanted to say, I was actually looking forward to Words of Power that dealt with Undead, so it was actually pertinent to my interests, as well as support to see more of what comes out of it.

Double Trouble.

[Dexion1619]

Humm... 2 Weeks, 97 posts, still on the front page of CPfOP... Just Saying :-)

[DarkLightHitomi]

You know, that line from the prd about one target per level (sorry but i cant c&p), doesn't say you can't target someone more then once. It might in the description but the line Nosferatu quoted doesn't indicate that.

Granted, in some cases it makes sense, but not in others. Magic missile can hit the same target multiple times, or can hit different targets, but i think the difference between the two cases lies in whether the caster gets more shots by cl, or gets stronger shots by cl, and getting both just seems overpowered.

[Nosferatu]

@DarkLightHitomi
Thanks for pointing it out. I've decided to quote a bunch of spells, MM, SR, and some Mass spells' for their descriptions and targeting regarding this matter. You're still correct, technically speaking, but I think the convincing on how to treat the spell lies in the degree of explicit language used in MM and SR, which is not present in other 'Mass' Spells as well as the Boost entry for target-word 'Selected'. It's a lot of cp, so I used a spoiler tag.

MM:

PRD: MAGIC MISSILE wrote:

School evocation [force]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage.

The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell.

For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile—two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher. If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.

Explicitly states that you can, and also, this spell isn't a ray, but more or less a multi-target, no-save force-damage spell. Unlike Boost Selected Force Bolt, which is a ray, and requires a ranged touch attack to hit.

SR:

PRD: SCORCHING RAY wrote:

School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect one or more rays
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
You blast your enemies with a searing beam of fire. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

Explicitly states that you can; it is a unique multiple-ray spell, which is described to function in a specific way. I can think of no other example of a spell such as this.

ILWM:

PRD: INFLICT LIGHT WOUNDS, MASS wrote:

School necromancy; Level cleric 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will half; Spell Resistance yes
Negative energy spreads out in all directions from the point of origin, dealing 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +25) to nearby living enemies.

Like other inflict spells, mass inflict light wounds cures undead in its area rather than damaging them. A cleric capable of spontaneously casting inflict spells can also spontaneously cast mass inflict spells.

Does not say anything to grant this ability. Assuming the above logic from Tinalles' thread, from the wording in Selected (which is exactly the same in the target entry), you may opt to deal (1d8+cl)*cl to a single target in your range. At level 9, the earliest you can cast it, that's 9d8+81, will save for half. Most of my characters can be killed in a single casting of this spell, assuming they fail their will save, and in two castings if they pass. Likewise, why bother learning Heal? You might as well hold out for 'Harm, Mass', and 'Heal, Mass' (which is 10 HP per CL, for each instance, all stacked on a single target?), since at level 9, before you can even cast it, CLM can out-do Heal for an average of ~121 hp, topping up your tank, as much as if you were casting a CL 12 Heal. Nothing states you can't do this, unless there's an FAQ about Mass targeting that I don't know about, and if there is, it should apply to the Boost entry on 'Selected'.

HPM:

PRD: HOLD PERSON wrote:

School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 2, cleric 2, sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F/DF (a small, straight piece of iron)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one humanoid creature
Duration 1 round/level (D); see text
Saving Throw Will negates; see text; Spell Resistance yes
The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech. Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown.

HOLD PERSON, MASS
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level sorcerer/wizard 7
Targets one or more humanoid creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
This spell functions like hold person, except as noted above.

Again, no explicit wording involved, but using HPM, you cannot force one target to make multiple saving throws until they either pass all of them, or fail in the attempt. It's not a common sense read, but its intuition on what falls through as a balanced application, on par for the level and intended effect of this spell.

SELECTED:

PRD: SELECTED wrote:

Level 0
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
A wordspell with this target word affects a single target within range. If the wordspell deals energy damage, this word creates a ray that requires a ranged touch attack to hit, or it can be used as a melee touch attack with no range (decided by the wordcaster when the wordspell is cast). If it is used as a melee touch attack and the attack misses, the wordcaster can hold the charge and try again with subsequent attacks.

Boost: Instead of one target, the wordspell affects up to one target per caster level, no two of which can be more than 30 feet apart. The range increases to medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level). If used with an effect word that deals energy damage, the wordcaster must make multiple ray attacks for each target (they cannot be made as melee touch attacks). This boosted target word increases the level of all the effect words in the spell by 3 levels.

So, I agree, it isn't made explicit which way the spell's targeting will function, but going by the most similar worded spells, and the way we use them, I'm pretty sure that unless it's made explicit, you may not affect the same target, more than once a round. Unfortunately, because there are some spells that do plainly state that they can, this issue has to be resolved on a per-spell basis. I'm sure that in the WoP entry, Boost Selected was a mechanic meant to upgrade a spell that could affect a single target, and convert it into it's advanced version as with the 'Mass' word in the standard spell list. I would suggest that should the discussion come up, you ought to treat 'Boost Selected' spell-words and 'Mass' spells, under the same concept, and that they cannot deliver the same effect multiple times, or that all targets are only affected by the spell once.

I'd honestly love for the option of multiple ray spells to mimic the functionality of how a Ranger can fire multiple arrows per round, especially if given the OK-GO to be able to affect a single target more than once with 'tons of ray damage', but that might be too far departed from standard PF play. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it seems like in order to do that, you'd have to abandon even WoP, and start with a new spell-casting system, to work with D20. </tangent rant>