|
MrSin, Mekkis seems to be on target. You've complained about an entire class of spells, expressing frustration that they are even part of the game.I have not complained about an entire school of spells. That would be a strawman. When you can quote me saying that enchantment spells only ruin the game or some such then you can say I have done so.
He hasn't said "a school of spells", he has said "a class of spells".
Now for the uh... actual topic. It's an awfully powerful enchantment to have, and it would sure as heck shut down more than its fair share of enemy abilities in PFS.Eh, I never had a problem with shutting down things that weren't fun. Save or may as well leave the table abilities in particular always struck me as not fun.(pretty sure I said that up thread though...) Always have to look at the fun factor with things.
I would say that most of your post in this thread are against the use of spells that make an opponent unable to act or controll his actions, i.e. a whole class of spells.
I would say that most of your post in this thread are against the use of spells that make an opponent unable to act or controll his actions, i.e. a whole class of spells.
Yarr, the line of questioning is about enchantment though. Left out that quote.
I would say that most of your post in this thread are against the use of spells that make an opponent unable to act or controll his actions, i.e. a whole class of spells.
In response to people stating you lose something I ask what your losing. If it wasn't fun, who cares if you lost it?
enchantment has a few other spells, but yeah, most of the spells are about removing a player's ability to participate.
a player whom buys mind buttressing is saying, "please don't charm or dominate me, i wanna play. not be turned into an NPC"
not everyone enjoys losing control of their character
i really don't understand why that particular school of magic exists beyond tradition and a handful of concepts.
|
enchantment has a few other spells, but yeah, most of the spells are about removing a player's ability to participate.
a player whom buys mind buttressing is saying, "please don't charm or dominate me, i wanna play. not be turned into an NPC"
not everyone enjoys losing control of their character
i really don't understand why that particular school of magic exists beyond tradition and a handful of concepts.
The wizard doing the look into my eyes thing is as at least as iconic as the fireball.
|
not everyone enjoys losing control of their character
I've seen this comment (or similar) a few times in this discussion and I don't understand it as a justification to ban something. Not that I disagree, but it can be applied to anything.
"not everyone enjoys getting critical hit by a x3(or 4) weapon"
"not everyone likes to die"
"not everyone likes to get ability damage/drain"
etc.
Sure not everything can immediately render you unable to act, but some can, and not all are even spells. The witch's hex was an example. I whole-heartedly agree with the posters that say everything a character can do should be available to their enemies. Its only fair. If a GM ever does something with the baddies that a player cannot do, they scream, "foul, unfair."
I also agree with the majority that say mind buttressing is too powerful for the cost. Using resonance powers as a justification is probably not going to win you any points. The vast majority think it is too powerful as well and should be banned.
|
|
+1 to Bob.
Hello! And welcome to the forums.Firstly, as has been explained above: yes, the spells it eliminates are fun. Have you considered a petition to ban the Enchantment school? Perhaps to ban "save-or-die" effects?Quick, lets throw things off topic by talking about unrelated things and creating strawmen and using hyperbole!
This is the best post in this thread so far. :P
So you're suggesting that not only do we invalidate a significant proportion of existing scenarios, but we also remove the effective viability of that kind of effect from new scenarios which are written?I'm not suggesting that at all when I state that there are other options, some of which may be more fun.
Let me ask another question entirely though, are the spells it invalidates fun? In particular, for players?
Firstly, as has been explained above: yes, the spells it eliminates are fun. Have you considered a petition to ban the Enchantment school? Perhaps to ban "save-or-die" effects?
Secondly, the spells it eliminates are actually easier to disrupt than many other spells (For reference, Dominate Person has a 1-round casting time, and short range - if you make your spellcraft check, it is often quite easy to avoid, simply by instructing the fighter to attack the spellcaster, or even just running away or getting behind total cover.)
Finally, do not forget that the GM is a player as well - if the combination of characters and scenarios is not fun for the GM, we will end up with fewer GMs.
Unfortunately, most of these spells are going to come from monsters who cast them as Standard Action SLA's, not as full round actions. The aforementioned Succubi being the most infamous and effective users of them with DC 23 Dominates...
==Aelryinth
|
|
That brings up an interesting point. We were discussing SLA a few months back and could not find anything that stated they enjoyed a reduced casting time. In fact, the CRB indicates SLA take the same amount of time to cast as the spell they emulate. Therefore, a succubi would require a full round to cast dominate. We were, however, specifically discussing the use of SLA summoning, but the same rules should apply to both. Ideas?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That brings up an interesting point. We were discussing SLA a few months back and could not find anything that stated they enjoyed a reduced casting time.
Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity.
In fact, the CRB indicates SLA take the same amount of time to cast as the spell they emulate.
I'm having trouble finding this; where is it?
|
|
NPCs have plenty of options that players don't have. Like, for example, there are plenty of NPCs that are completly immune to any mind affecting effects.
Most, if not all, of those in PFS are undead. Nobody cries foul about that because it's a natural (unnatural?) part of being undead.
When NPCs start taking other class/feat/race/trait/item based options that players dont have in PFS because they are banned, but otherwise could use in a game, THATS when people cry foul.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I'm having trouble finding this; where is it?
You cant find it because it isnt true. The section from the PRD states:
A constant spell-like ability or one that can be used at will has no use limit; unless otherwise stated, a creature can only use a constant spell-like ability on itself. Reactivating a constant spell-like ability is a swift action. Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity.
So then the question becomes: Does a different casting time for the spell it's duplicating count as "noted otherwise"? Or does it have to be noted as part of the SLA itself?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So then the question becomes: Does a different casting time for the spell it's duplicating count as "noted otherwise"? Or does it have to be noted as part of the SLA itself?I'm having trouble finding this; where is it?
You cant find it because it isnt true. The section from the PRD states:
A constant spell-like ability or one that can be used at will has no use limit; unless otherwise stated, a creature can only use a constant spell-like ability on itself. Reactivating a constant spell-like ability is a swift action. Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity.
If it meant "standard unless the spell's casting time is longer", then that would mean it works exactly like wands. The fact that the language between this and wand activation is so different would indicate that they function differently.
Actually, 'unless noted otherwise' generally means the OPPOSITE of that...if the spell is a swift action, it generally goes off as a swift action. If it's anything else, it goes off as a Standard Action. Which means, yes, SLA's are cast faster then their source spells.
i.e. all the summoning spells as SLA's go off as SA's, not full-round actions, unless specifically noted otherwise, and the same ruling would apply to just about any spell cast that way. Note that you generally don't find spells with extremely long casting times as SLA's, but just like Efreet ignore 25k material components, others can ignore multi or full round casting times.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Well, the dear aasimars and tieflings are immune because of being outsiders. As far as i remember there were enough discussions here about them and the ARG and RP....
People don´t only cry foul when NPC´s get to use banned things, they also cry much more "foul" when NPC´s use the same tricks, builds and combinations like them.
|
|
Actually, 'unless noted otherwise' generally means the OPPOSITE of that...if the spell is a swift action, it generally goes off as a swift action. If it's anything else, it goes off as a Standard Action. Which means, yes, SLA's are cast faster then their source spells.
i.e. all the summoning spells as SLA's go off as SA's, not full-round actions, unless specifically noted otherwise, and the same ruling would apply to just about any spell cast that way. Note that you generally don't find spells with extremely long casting times as SLA's, but just like Efreet ignore 25k material components, others can ignore multi or full round casting times.
==Aelryinth
I was thinking particularly of using awaken with a called cetaceal agathion. I called a cetaceal in a really high-level sanctioned adventure, and she stayed for a good number of days. If she had been able to awaken as a standard action instead of a 24 hour cast time, well, that would have been pretty different.
|
|
I was thinking particularly of using awaken with a called cetaceal agathion. I called a cetaceal in a really high-level sanctioned adventure, and she stayed for a good number of days. If she had been able to awaken as a standard action instead of a 24 hour cast time, well, that would have been pretty different.
Well, awaken may not be the best example since its not PFS legal ;)
|
|
I was thinking particularly of using awaken with a called cetaceal agathion. I called a cetaceal in a really high-level sanctioned adventure, and she stayed for a good number of days. If she had been able to awaken as a standard action instead of a 24 hour cast time, well, that would have been pretty different.Well, awaken may not be the best example since its not PFS legal ;)
Yeah, it was campaign mode.
I believe there's a meta feat, Rapid casting, to reduce the casting time of really long spells. Might be 3.5, however.
And yes, being able to Awaken your own little army out of trees, horses, bulls, and war dogs would be a potent and VERY cost-effective way of recruiting stuff.
==Aelryinth
|
enchantment has a few other spells, but yeah, most of the spells are about removing a player's ability to participate.
a player whom buys mind buttressing is saying, "please don't charm or dominate me, i wanna play. not be turned into an NPC"
not everyone enjoys losing control of their character
i really don't understand why that particular school of magic exists beyond tradition and a handful of concepts.
There are a lot of things a player doesn't want to happen to them, just because they don't doesn't mean it won't. When I GM, I usually let a player play their character while dominated, I just give them guidelines of what I want to happen.
The Enchantment school has loads of useful spells beyond Charm/Dominate/Hold spells. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean other players don't so please stop invalidating a part of the game you don't like it. When you run your homegame you are welcome to do such things. In fact your argument that something should be removed because you don't like it sounds like the argument that something should be allowed because you don't like what it protects against.
Mind Buttressing is overpowered for the cost and I am glad it is not allowed.
There are a lot of things a player doesn't want to happen to them, just because they don't doesn't mean it won't.
Statements like that sort of miss the point don't they?
The Enchantment school has loads of useful spells beyond Charm/Dominate/Hold spells.
What examples do you have?
I believe there's a meta feat, Rapid casting, to reduce the casting time of really long spells. Might be 3.5, however.
Rapid Spell was a metamagic from complete divine. Off the top of my head Pathfinder has Acadamae Graduate.
|
|
There are a lot of things a player doesn't want to happen to them, just because they don't doesn't mean it won't.Statements like that sort of miss the point don't they?
No it doesn't. What is the point of playing a game if there are no challenges. Do you just want your boon, xp, whatever else and move on? If characters are all on "god mode" it makes the game boring.
The Enchantment school has loads of useful spells beyond Charm/Dominate/Hold spells.
What examples do you have?
Oh I don't know, Bless, Bane, Daze, Feeblemind, the list goes on.
No it doesn't. What is the point of playing a game if there are no challenges. Do you just want your boon, xp, whatever else and move on? If characters are all on "god mode" it makes the game boring.
Hello strawman! Who said no one wants challenges? Save or dies aren't even challenges. Dice gods whims.
Oh I don't know, Bless, Bane, Daze, Feeblemind, the list goes on.
Okay, so which ones do you lose with mind buttressing? Just linking a school dodges the point. Which ones are fun and add to the game that you lose! That's the important question.
|
Okay, so which ones do you lose with mind buttressing? Just linking a school dodges the point. Which ones are fun and add to the game that you lose! That's the important question.
Sorry, actually it's not the important question. The important question is why the hell is mind buttressing so cheap for the ability it bestows? If it were actually an expensive ability, I don't really think people would mind too much that it exists. The excessive accessibility of the enchantment is its real problem. 9k is ridiculous for an ability this powerful.
Discussing whether you, or anyone, likes SoD spells, or what spells out of the echantment school are good, or fun to deal with, is irrelevant to how unbalanced the armor enchantment is.
The important question is why the hell is mind buttressing so cheap for the ability it bestows? If it were actually an expensive ability, I don't really think people would mind too much that it exists. The excessive accessibility of the enchantment is its real problem.
Well its price is a variable with an opportunity cost. What do you think the price is?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a +2 armor bonus, which can be obtained for as little as 9k. It also does not have much competition as has been pointed out, because there are few armor enchantments that are as good as it. Most people who want this enchantment will get it at the 9k to get it earlier in their PFS character lifetime, and get other things later as they become available due to fame and cost.
Edit: Purchasing it early on is also only 4.5k more expensive than the CSIS. Considering this, you get an item that's in one way at least 4 times more effective (in terms of alignment protection) for 2 times the cost. How is that balanced?
It's too cheap.
Another edit: This has been argued extensively in the thread and I really don't think it's worth arguing any more. As far as I can tell, there's not really been anything said that diffuses the argument that the enchantment is too cheap for what it does.
If you want to keep attacking this from the angle that "people don't like MC effects" that's fine. I won't disagree with you that this would be a cool enchantment to have. This argument however is subjective, because some people don't mind those effects and don't really see the need for this item. Other people see blanket immunity as a problem that makes it harder to write more interesting scenarios. If you keep proceeding with this argument, the conversation will go in unproductive circles indefinitely because it's entirely rooted in opinion.
As far as I'm concerned, the factual issue with this enchantment it is that it is way too cheap for what it does. And purely for that reason, I think it should remain banned.
Edit: Purchasing it early on is also only 4.5k more expensive than the CSIS. Considering this, you get an item that's in one way at least 4 times more effective (in terms of alignment protection) for 2 times the cost. How is that balanced?
On the other hand, how often is it that a Good aligned caster is casting dominate person on you?
It's too cheap.
I actually disagree with that. I think its fine.
Also, given the magic vestment spell and that unlike magic weapons, where they came up with a cool way to make true enhancement more valuable than a buff spell, there is little reason not to get pure armor enhancement with magic vestment. That means it costs even less than it may seem to cost.
On the other hand, people who can cast magic vestment usually have fantastic will saves anyway(and access to other nifty spells), and the people who need it most usually have no access outside of a good friend or a scroll that'll take away from their other cash.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Gonna commit some blasphemy and get back on topic for a second here. ;)
My cleric wouldn't touch this. Neither would my armored Eldritch Knight. My sorceress can't use it. Neither can my bard, or my wife's magus. (Someone said it was medium/heavy-only, right?)
The clear spindle is 4k for anyone unless there's a specific other resonance power they're after. Mind buttressing, if I'm understanding it correctly, is only available to a subset of PCs who both wear significant armor and are okay with a permanent –2 to AC.
Is it that big of a deal for certain barbarians and maybe the odd ranger to have access to this? Because that's what the "consumer base" is looking like to me.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Gonna commit some blasphemy and get back on topic for a second here. ;)
My cleric wouldn't touch this. Neither would my armored Eldritch Knight. My sorceress can't use it. Neither can my bard, or my wife's magus. (Someone said it was medium/heavy-only, right?)
The clear spindle is 4k for anyone unless there's a specific other resonance power they're after. Mind buttressing, if I'm understanding it correctly, is only available to a subset of PCs who both wear significant armor and are okay with a permanent –2 to AC.
Is it that big of a deal for certain barbarians and maybe the odd ranger to have access to this? Because that's what the "consumer base" is looking like to me.
I'm fairly certain a mithral breastplate or other medium armor would qualify for this enchantment (don't have the source on hand though)--meaning that all non-arcane casters could benefit from it.
So I could see oracles, rogues, and anyone else that tanks Wisdom picking it up. It is pretty useless for clerics, druids, monks, rangers, and arcane casters though.
EDIT: After reading it (Carlos posted about it on page 1), I'm actually unsure if mithral medium armor would qualify for the enchantment.
|
|
Gonna commit some blasphemy and get back on topic for a second here. ;)
My cleric wouldn't touch this. Neither would my armored Eldritch Knight. My sorceress can't use it. Neither can my bard, or my wife's magus. (Someone said it was medium/heavy-only, right?)
The clear spindle is 4k for anyone unless there's a specific other resonance power they're after. Mind buttressing, if I'm understanding it correctly, is only available to a subset of PCs who both wear significant armor and are okay with a permanent –2 to AC.
Is it that big of a deal for certain barbarians and maybe the odd ranger to have access to this? Because that's what the "consumer base" is looking like to me.
I'm fairly certain a mithral breastplate or other medium armor would qualify for this enchantment (don't have the source on hand though)--meaning that all non-arcane casters could benefit from it.
So I could see oracles, rogues, and anyone else that tanks Wisdom picking it up. It is pretty useless for clerics, druids, monks, rangers, and arcane casters though.
Yup, and my oracle even has magic vestment!
EDIT: After reading it (Carlos posted about it on page 1), I'm actually unsure if mithral medium armor would qualify for the enchantment.
I actually thought it didn't when I read it. Meaning no character I play will benefit from it... I like my mithral breastplate to much to give it up.
|
|
The consumer base as i see it are most probably heavy hitting melee or archer types, maybe even rogues, who have a low will save and dumped their WIS in order to get other things higher. Frankly speaking fairly optimized characters. Said characters tend to onehit/shot a lot of encounters and end them fast. So, somehow delaying that by a compulsion/enchantment spell is a good gamedesign option, as is using it against the party.
There are always iron will and improved iron will, what evens out a lot already if you don´t dump your WIS to 8 or 7.
I had a two-handed fighter like that who was going crazy because a very small demon used cause fear on him and he was out of the fight for 4 rounds. Two running away, two coming back. That made an otherwise superboring 1-2 rounds encounter into a fun 5-6 rounds encounter that was memorizable. Now cause fear is not enchantment, but it is a similar mechanic and taking out the player. Of course he didn´t like it one bit, but overall it made the encounter much better, because there was some threat to the demon horde then and they didn´t just get hacked into pieces in one round.
That being said, there is always the possibility of medium mithral armor.
Either kikko or breastplate.
|
|
Yeah that comes down to language interpretation problems again.
Is "are treated as" similar or the as to "become".
I would say it is possible, since you still need the medium armor proficiency to avoid the ACP.
This is just among the same line as the titanmauler jotungrip ability and swashbucklers slashing finesse with a two-handed sword.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm fairly certain a mithral breastplate or other medium armor would qualify for this enchantment (don't have the source on hand though)--meaning that all non-arcane casters could benefit from it.
So I could see oracles, rogues, and anyone else that tanks Wisdom picking it up. It is pretty useless for clerics, druids, monks, rangers, and arcane casters though.
EDIT: After reading it (Carlos posted about it on page 1), I'm actually unsure if mithral medium armor would qualify for the enchantment.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall during the conversation where the player is trying to explain that his bard can cast in his mithral breastplate because it's light but can use this enhancement because it's medium.
A mithral breastplate is considered light armor for everything but proficiency.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall during the conversation where the player is trying to explain that his bard can cast in his mithral breastplate because it's light but can use this enhancement because it's medium.
Would be funnier if there were a fighter with a mithral breastplate and the brawler enchant on it.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fairly certain a mithral breastplate or other medium armor would qualify for this enchantment (don't have the source on hand though)--meaning that all non-arcane casters could benefit from it.
So I could see oracles, rogues, and anyone else that tanks Wisdom picking it up. It is pretty useless for clerics, druids, monks, rangers, and arcane casters though.
EDIT: After reading it (Carlos posted about it on page 1), I'm actually unsure if mithral medium armor would qualify for the enchantment.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall during the conversation where the player is trying to explain that his bard can cast in his mithral breastplate because it's light but can use this enhancement because it's medium.
A mithral breastplate is considered light armor for everything but proficiency.
I'd hate to be a fly. They have a really short lifespan. Better than a mayfly though. If it had to be an insect, I'd rather be a cicada on the wall. A termite queen would probably live longer, but I'd be self-conscious about all that weight.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Orson Scott Card, in his excellent book about writing science fiction, explains that the language we use about alien technology and fantasy species has to be constrained away from metaphor. We can speak of the Chicago El snaking its way through a neighborhood, because we understand what a train is. If the people of Nex might have similar trains that might be, but aren't, actually snakes, we can't use that same language, for fear of confusing readers.
So it is with the metaphorical "fly on the wall." Nobody would want to be a fly. If for no other reason than we want to hear and comprehend the conversation ongoing in said room, and a fly has neither the brainpower nor the correct inner ears to do the job.
I dare so far as to sugest that Jiggy intended something along the lines of "I wish I'd cast clairaudience in the room during the conversation ..."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In fact, the CRB indicates SLA take the same amount of time to cast as the spell they emulate.
I'm having trouble finding this; where is it?
page 221, CRB, SPECIAL ABILITIES, Spell-Like Abilities...
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates is mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the* ability or spell description*. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like the spell.
Since the start of PFRPG, I was using summoning SLA's as a standard action based on the wording at the beginning of the text. However, I got my ass chewed by numerous players who said that the latter part of the text clearly indicates an SLA has a casting time per the spell description. I don't claim to be an English major, but their argument is compelling based on the text.
The section from the PRD states...
You will note that the text from the PRD does not match that from the CRB and, IMO, leaves out very important wording. This is the reason why I NEVER use the PRD for rules adjudication.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, the CRB indicates SLA take the same amount of time to cast as the spell they emulate.I'm having trouble finding this; where is it?page 221, CRB, SPECIAL ABILITIES, Spell-Like Abilities...
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates is mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the* ability or spell description*. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like the spell.Since the start of PFRPG, I was using summoning SLA's as a standard action based on the wording at the beginning of the text. However, I got my ass chewed by numerous players who said that the latter part of the text clearly indicates an SLA has a casting time per the spell description. I don't claim to be an English major, but their argument is compelling based on the text.
The section from the PRD states...You will note that the text from the PRD does not match that from the CRB and, IMO, leaves out very important wording. This is the reason why I NEVER use the PRD for rules adjudication.
But the PRD (note: not the fan-made SRD, but the official PRD) is updated by Paizo with the latest errata. If it doesn't match your CRB, you should probably check whether you have the latest printing or not. It's possible that the wording in your book got intentionally changed to the wording in the PRD, which would carry some very significant implications.
Occasionally there are genuine differences between the latest CRB and the PRD, but they're pretty darn rare. An apparent difference will usually mean your CRB is out of date, so spotting such a difference should always prompt a reader to double-check.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Orson Scott Card, in his excellent book about writing science fiction, explains that the language we use about alien technology and fantasy species has to be constrained away from metaphor. We can speak of the Chicago El snaking its way through a neighborhood, because we understand what a train is. If the people of Nex might have similar trains that might be, but aren't, actually snakes, we can't use that same language, for fear of confusing readers.
So it is with the metaphorical "fly on the wall." Nobody would want to be a fly. If for no other reason than we want to hear and comprehend the conversation ongoing in said room, and a fly has neither the brainpower nor the correct inner ears to do the job.
I dare so far as to sugest that Jiggy intended something along the lines of "I wish I'd cast clairaudience in the room during the conversation ..."
Clearly my Perform (comedy) check was too low for this crowd. :(
|
|
The section from the PRD states...You will note that the text from the PRD does not match that from the CRB and, IMO, leaves out very important wording. This is the reason why I NEVER use the PRD for rules adjudication.
The PRD has the same language in the Magic section. I'm guessing this is one of those situations where certain details are spread across multiple sections, like incorporeal traits and potion creation rules.
EDIT:
andreww's text is from the universal monster rules section here.
Bob's is from the Magic section here.
Everybody's right!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The PRD has the same language in the Magic section. I'm guessing this is one of those situations where certain details are spread across multiple sections, like incorporeal traits and potion creation rules.The section from the PRD states...You will note that the text from the PRD does not match that from the CRB and, IMO, leaves out very important wording. This is the reason why I NEVER use the PRD for rules adjudication.
Aha! Good catch! Okay, so they match, it's just that there's more than one description and only one contains that phrase. Good to know!
|
|
you should probably check whether you have the latest printing or not. It's possible that the wording in your book got intentionally changed to the wording in the PRD, which would carry some very significant implications.
Nope, I have three printings from 1st to 5th and the text has remained consistent. So, far, I haven't found anything in errata or FAQ that would support a standard casting of a summoning SLA...and believe me, as a GM, I would love to find it :-)