|
I have found a flaw here.
Since you can't take the Constitution damage from the Blood Reservoir because of the Ring, then a DM could determine that it follows the part about it not working if you can't take Constitution damage.
Also, because the Blood Reservoir only works until the end of your next turn, the DM could say you wouldn't have time to cast all this together.
I have found a flaw here.
Since you can't take the Constitution damage from the Blood Reservoir because of the Ring, then a DM could determine that it follows the part about it not working if you can't take Constitution damage.
Also, because the Blood Reservoir only works until the end of your next turn, the DM could say you wouldn't have time to cast all this together.
The buffs last longer then 1 round. You pop the Blood Reservoir last the round before you want to cast the blood money spell. You can take off the ring to get the charges. Use some critical thinking... These things are really obvious. You just don't want it to work and thus don't consider casting things in a particular order even though its super obvious. Seriously... you brought up having to cast the spells within the time of blood reservoir I don't think you are well suited to talk about casters.
Er. No. You're the one who needs to provide a quote to back up your claim that despite the spell saying explicitly it's a sorcerer/wizard spell it isn't actually a sorcerer/wizard spell.
Quote please. There are no rules that state that a spell being castable by a class means it is on that class' spell list. And the sorcerer class feature specifically says there are spells which are castable by sorcerers but are not on their spell lists.
The rules never define anything as a "sorcerer spell". That's not a game term - it's just a loose word we use to talk about stuff.
In the rules, there is a list of spells for sorcerers and wizards.
The rules also specify that in the spell descriptions, when it says sor/wiz X, it means that a sorcerer can cast that spell as an x-leveled spell.
At no point does it say that the sor/wiz X means that it is automatically on the sorcerer spell list.
If you define "sorcerer spell" as a spell on the sor/wiz spell list, blood money is not a sorcerer spell, and neither is Entangle for fey sorcerers.
If you define it as "spell sorcerers can cast", the blood money and entangle are both sorcerer spells (for a fey sorcerer).
This isn't even pedantry; theres a very strong indicator that spells castable by sorcerers but not on sorcerer spell lists are deliberate and intended.Yes. And that refers to spells that aren't sorcerer spells. It says it pretty explicitly.
It refers to spells not on the sorcerer spell list, more precisely, it says that the sorcerer spell list is of common spells and that more uncommon ones require research.
A sorcerer cannot learn spells that lack a sor/wiz spell level, so if having a sor/wiz spell level means it's automatically on a sor/wiz spell list the sentence would be 100% pointless.
Amusingly if Blood Money is not a spell on the sorcerer/wizard spell list then Karzoug, being a wizard, is incapable of using it.
No, because learning or using a spell only requires the spell to be castable by the class, in other words having a sor/wiz level designator. Again, see the actual magic rules:
Level
The next line of a spell description gives the spell's level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell's relative power. This number is preceded by a list of classes whose members can cast the spell. A spell's level affects the DC for any save allowed against its effects.
If it has a sor/wiz level designation, a sorcerer or wizard can cast it. The rules do not specify that that would mean that they are automatically on the classes spell lists, and, again, the sorcerer _specifically points to being able to learn spells that are not on its spell list_.
You mean "uses the rules that are written in the book". The bigger issue is when people come on in with made up handicaps and pretend that those are valid.The are actual legit ways casters can break the game. Sno-cone wish factories, ignoring the RP elements of planar binding, and blood money are not what people should be focusing on. These rules debates are obscuring anything relevant from this thread.I agree. The problem is, every single time a topic like this comes up the thread devolves into people using the most broken possible interpretation of the rules combined with a handful a spells whose limiting factors tend to be ignored.
I hope you realize thats a sword that cuts both ways.
I hope you realize thats a sword that cuts both ways.You mean "uses the rules that are written in the book". The bigger issue is when people come on in with made up handicaps and pretend that those are valid.The are actual legit ways casters can break the game. Sno-cone wish factories, ignoring the RP elements of planar binding, and blood money are not what people should be focusing on. These rules debates are obscuring anything relevant from this thread.I agree. The problem is, every single time a topic like this comes up the thread devolves into people using the most broken possible interpretation of the rules combined with a handful a spells whose limiting factors tend to be ignored.
Like making up handicaps for the GM?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules never define anything as a "sorcerer spell". That's not a game term - it's just a loose word we use to talk about stuff.
By the Great Beard of Poseidon! You were actually serious?!
If it has a sor/wiz level designation, a sorcerer or wizard can cast it. The rules do not specify that that would mean that they are automatically on the classes spell lists, and, again, the sorcerer _specifically points to being able to learn spells that are not on its spell list_.Level
The next line of a spell description gives the spell's level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell's relative power. This number is preceded by a list of classes whose members can cast the spell. A spell's level affects the DC for any save allowed against its effects.
Are you honestly trying to argue that a spell with the words "Sor/Wiz 1" in its description is not a level 1 spell on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list?
That's the most desperate argument I have seen in these boards in a long, long time.
Do we really need a dev to come around and issue a FAQ saying that spells that have the sentence "Level magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, witch 1" are in fact, part of the spell list for the mentioned classes?
Unless you are running that AP using AP specific sources doesn't make sense.
RotRL is pretty brutal, I can see blood money being appropriate, provided you don't abuse other AP specific sources to have like 51 strength to take damage.
It is possibly the stupidest argument I have ever seen used on these boards and that position has a hell of a lot of competition, some of it in this thread.The rules never define anything as a "sorcerer spell". That's not a game term - it's just a loose word we use to talk about stuff.By the Great Beard of Poseidon! You were actually serious?!
Are you honestly trying to argue that a spell with the words "Sor/Wiz 1" is not a level 1 spell on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list?
That's the most desperate argument I have seen in these boards in a long, long time.
Do we really need a dev to come around and issue a FAQ saying that spells that have the sentence "Level magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, witch 1" are in fact, part of the spell list for the mentioned classes
It was a tongue in cheek argument made by Dr. Deth to make fun of the idea that Invisibility made you quieter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oddly, enough... Invisibility does give the target a +20 to all Stealth checks, so it does indeed grant you a +20 to move silently, if that's how you choose to flavor your Stealth check.
Do I find it completely stupid that the rules say an invisible character is better at hiding from blind people in a completely dark room? Of course I do, but still, accordding to RAW, that's what the spell does (I guess we could assume it's a secondary effect of the spell, instead of a consequence of invisibility itself :/).
Personaly, I house rule it to instead cause a -10 (not -20) penalty to creatures relying mainly on sight to detect the invisible character. The penalty is doubled for creatures who rely exclusively on sight (i.e.: creatures looking through a window that blocks sound). So, if you're in the dark or if the other creature is blind anyway, invisibility won't give any benefits to the caster.
I hope you realize thats a sword that cuts both ways.You mean "uses the rules that are written in the book". The bigger issue is when people come on in with made up handicaps and pretend that those are valid.The are actual legit ways casters can break the game. Sno-cone wish factories, ignoring the RP elements of planar binding, and blood money are not what people should be focusing on. These rules debates are obscuring anything relevant from this thread.I agree. The problem is, every single time a topic like this comes up the thread devolves into people using the most broken possible interpretation of the rules combined with a handful a spells whose limiting factors tend to be ignored.
It cuts one way and that's in my favor. Since I rely on the "The rules say I can." If you want to rely on the "The rules don't say this, but I feel its appropriate because I don't like the way it actually works..." it cuts against you. Fatally so.
Oddly, enough... Invisibility does give the target a +20 to all Stealth checks, so it does indeed grant you a +20 to move silently, if that's how you choose to flavor your Stealth check.
Do I find it completely stupid that the rules say an invisible character is better at hiding from blind people in a completely dark room? Of course I do, but still, accordding to RAW, that's what the spell does (I guess we could assume it's a secondary effect of the spell, instead of a consequence of invisibility itself :/).
Personaly, I house rule it to instead cause a -10 (not -20) penalty to creatures relying mainly on sight to detect the invisible character. The penalty is doubled for creatures who rely exclusively on sight (i.e.: creatures looking through a window that blocks sound). So, if you're in the dark or if the other creature is blind anyway, invisibility won't give any benefits to the caster.
not really RAW. The spell says it doesn't make you quieter so treating one of it's effects as making you quieter is breaking the RAW.
not really RAW. The spell says it doesn't make you quieter so treating one of it's effects as making you quieter is breaking the RAW.Oddly, enough... Invisibility does give the target a +20 to all Stealth checks, so it does indeed grant you a +20 to move silently, if that's how you choose to flavor your Stealth check.
Do I find it completely stupid that the rules say an invisible character is better at hiding from blind people in a completely dark room? Of course I do, but still, accordding to RAW, that's what the spell does (I guess we could assume it's a secondary effect of the spell, instead of a consequence of invisibility itself :/).
Personaly, I house rule it to instead cause a -10 (not -20) penalty to creatures relying mainly on sight to detect the invisible character. The penalty is doubled for creatures who rely exclusively on sight (i.e.: creatures looking through a window that blocks sound). So, if you're in the dark or if the other creature is blind anyway, invisibility won't give any benefits to the caster.
But by making you have a higher stealth, it does make you quieter.
Personally I'd just treat the noise aspect of Invisibility's Stealth bonus as the psychological advantage of being invisible when you're trying to remain stealthy.
Let's say someone is sneaking past behind me and the steps on a plank in my house that creaks. I'll glance over my shoulder and see him - he's busted.
Next, let's say someone is invisible and sneaking past me, and the floor in my house creaks. I'll glance over my shoulder, see no one, and assume it's my dog stretching, or the house is shifting (old houses tend to), or my neighbor is out in his yard doing something. Most people mentally dismiss sensory stimuli hundreds of times every day, it helps keep us sane.
If the noise is loud, unusual or noticeable enough (plates crashing in the the kitchen, running steps outside my door, lion roaring in the distance) I would probably get up, check that my door not unlocked, look out the windows, check where my dogs are and if they're reacting to anything, or more likely - broken something ;).
Now, that said - I don't live in Golarion. Odds are I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that I have an invisible stalker, while that might be a reasonable assumption for an adventurer.
Therefore, this is how I'd rule invisibility works in Golarion. The scene is a PC keeping watch at the fire, with an NPC trying to sneak past them.
If the NPC's stealth check is good enough to beat the PC's perception check before the Invisibility spell bonus kicks in, the NPC's home free. The PC gets no clues and never even knows he passed.
If the NPC's stealth check is good enough to beat the PC's perception check - but only because of the invisibility spell - I'd assume the NPC made enough noise that the PC character glanced up or checked, which would normally have resulted in the NPC getting caught, but then dismissed it when there was no visible source of the disturbance. If the PC later has reason to ask me if someone stealthed past I'd tell him that now that he thinks about it he did hear a a sound but he checked thoroughly, didn't see anything, and assumed it was ambient noise.
If the PC's perception checks beats out the Stealth check even with Invisibility active, I'd be quite specific in what I told him: You heard a series of footsteps but can't see anyone - you suspect someone is invisible and in the area.
And obviously if the PC had a See Invisibility spell active I'd disregard the stealth bonus v perception checks for that character.
|
Remember the extemporaneous rules!: It may sound dumb but encumbrance can be the absolute bane of an arcane caster. Have a player who wants to dump Str to an 8 for boosted Int of 20 on their wizard? Well remember that when they want to pick up a quarterstaff, crossbow and a pack of bolts, and a wizard's kit puts him at 30 lbs. and into his medium load. On top of that it treats as medium armor and doubles his penalties. Now I know that seems small but you've now just put that wizard at a 20ft movement speed, a -6 armor check penalty, and should give him some arcane spell failure. Now I know this sounds like extemporaneous book keeping but your player is already playing a class about book keeping (in the case of a wizard literally) and it does help balance out the class. At low levels it keeps them packing light and makes them rely on other players (hell remember that 50 coins, ANY 50 COINS, weigh a pound!) and as they move up in levels makes them have to invest (or at least consider investing in) some items to reduce this problem like a handy haversack, bag of holding, or even a mwk backpack. That investment can help keep them at level with the rest of the party and keep them from buying up all those juicy magic items that boost their casting power that they can usually invest in more easily because of their lack of armor or weapon purchases they would have to buy with other classes to stay competitiveI am pretty certain that being at a medium load doesn't double up your penalties. You take a -3ACP and are limited to +3 max dex and 20' base speed. That is it. I am not sure why you think it counts as armour.
Also it isn't difficult to stay within your light load at low level even when you go to 7. If you do have excess stuff then getting another party member to carry non essentials is also more than viable. Later on the Haversack simply removes encumbrance as an issue and hardly costs anything at all.
Not normally but if you are a class that is not proficient with medium armor you take double penalties and if you are a class like a wizard, sorc, or summoner you take double because of the nonproficiencies.
As for 7 Str yeah you can but again it does force the player to be very aware of their load. At 7 Str we are talking a 23 lb light load, your spell components pouch, spellbook, and scholars robe puts you at a weight of 11 lbs. Add to that a quarterstaff, backpack, and waterskin and you've got exactly 2 lbs for your trail rations, rope, belt pouch, any ranged weapon you want to haul along, and whatever money you still have. This gets even more complicated if your GM holds you to a silver standard (i.e. points out that most pf economies run on silver being passed from person to person and not gold) and you have to either get used to the idea that you might not be able to carry all your money or that you might start to look suspicious around town when you start paying for everything in what is essentially $50 dollar bills.
Now none of this is saying you can't but it is more to illustrate the point that there are a lot of very easy ways that the game helps moderate some of the wizardly shenanigans that casters can get into.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
I often wonder if certain people have the ability to read the entire spell description instead of selectively editing out the parts they don't like.As opposed to reading in things which don't exist which seems to be a favourite of yours and others.
You mean the volumes of setting specific content not located on the PRD?
That falls under things you would prefer to pretend don't exist. They provide the context that describe how and why the game works. A player choosing to ignore the campaign setting is still bound by it, no matter how much they cry. The City of Brass and the hierarchy of the Efreeti are well covered within the published material.
|
|
I stand by my opinion that if the monk's weaknesses and limiting factors got handwaved away as much as the wizard's, then the monk would be considered overpowered as well.
This includes RAW handwaving, like charging a 5 gp tax at character creation, and then NEVER having to bother with lesser material components again throughout the character's career.
But by making you have a higher stealth, it does make you quieter.not really RAW. The spell says it doesn't make you quieter so treating one of it's effects as making you quieter is breaking the RAW.Oddly, enough... Invisibility does give the target a +20 to all Stealth checks, so it does indeed grant you a +20 to move silently, if that's how you choose to flavor your Stealth check.
Do I find it completely stupid that the rules say an invisible character is better at hiding from blind people in a completely dark room? Of course I do, but still, accordding to RAW, that's what the spell does (I guess we could assume it's a secondary effect of the spell, instead of a consequence of invisibility itself :/).
Personaly, I house rule it to instead cause a -10 (not -20) penalty to creatures relying mainly on sight to detect the invisible character. The penalty is doubled for creatures who rely exclusively on sight (i.e.: creatures looking through a window that blocks sound). So, if you're in the dark or if the other creature is blind anyway, invisibility won't give any benefits to the caster.
Specifics override general. Spell says it doesn't make you quieter, so even though it increases your stealth check that doesn't make you quieter.
You are just harder to pinpoint. I believe the +20 thing was a mechanic in 3.5 too for spotting invisible creatures.
"A Spot check result higher than 20 generally lets you become aware of an invisible creature near you, though you can’t actually see it."
There. That's all the +20 to stealth means.
Specifics override general. Spell says it doesn't make you quieter, so even though it increases your stealth check that doesn't make you quieter.
That's not what the spell says. It says it doesn't make you magically silenced.
But it does add to Stealth checks, which make you quieter.
You are not magically silent (as per Silence).
But you are quieter.
You are not magically silent (as per Silence).
But you are quieter.
It doesn't say as per silence.
It doesn't say as per silence.You are not magically silent (as per Silence).
But you are quieter.
It was the only example I could think of that creates magical silence.
It was the only example I could think of that creates magical silence.It doesn't say as per silence.You are not magically silent (as per Silence).
But you are quieter.
That is still not what the spell says.
It doesn't make you quieter. You would think an explicate sentence would be enough to clarify that the +20 to stealth doesn't apply to sound.
It was the only example I could think of that creates magical silence.It doesn't say as per silence.You are not magically silent (as per Silence).
But you are quieter.
That is still not what the spell says.
It doesn't make you quieter. You would think an explicate sentence would be enough to clarify that the +20 to stealth doesn't apply to sound.
I wish you would actually read the spell.
It says it doesn't make you magical lyrics silent. It does not say it doesn't make you quieter.
You're trying to argue that invisibility makes you quieter when there are ways to interpret it and run it where it doesn't.
How are you rolling that, then? Are you just telling the player "well, you cast invisibility but you're going to make noise so I'm not going to give you the stealth bonus". That seems abundantly silly to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are you rolling that, then? Are you just telling the player "well, you cast invisibility but you're going to make noise so I'm not going to give you the stealth bonus". That seems abundantly silly to me.
In 3.5 the spot check to detect an invisible creature was 20.
The plus 20 to stealth clearly stems from that mechanic.
The spell says it doesn't make you quieter. So even though you get a plus 20 to stealth that is not to stealth roles to prevent noise. The specific rule of this spell overrides the general rule of stealth bonuses making you quieter, since the spell explicitly forbids any effect from it making you quieter.
Of course this requires looking at individual senses for perception. Which I don't mind. You can say this is not RAW, but saying the invisibility spell makes you quieter CANNOT be RAW.
So whatever floats your boat. Just don't think you are running the game RAW when you ignore lines in a spell.
** spoiler omitted **...
The spell still says it doesn't make you quieter. At best you can claim that sources of invisibility that is not the spell makes you quieter.
not really RAW. The spell says it doesn't make you quieter so treating one of it's effects as making you quieter is breaking the RAW.Oddly, enough... Invisibility does give the target a +20 to all Stealth checks, so it does indeed grant you a +20 to move silently, if that's how you choose to flavor your Stealth check.
Do I find it completely stupid that the rules say an invisible character is better at hiding from blind people in a completely dark room? Of course I do, but still, accordding to RAW, that's what the spell does (I guess we could assume it's a secondary effect of the spell, instead of a consequence of invisibility itself :/).
Personaly, I house rule it to instead cause a -10 (not -20) penalty to creatures relying mainly on sight to detect the invisible character. The penalty is doubled for creatures who rely exclusively on sight (i.e.: creatures looking through a window that blocks sound). So, if you're in the dark or if the other creature is blind anyway, invisibility won't give any benefits to the caster.
Does it matter? It gives you a +20 toALL Stealth checks. Any time your GM ask your invisible character to make a Stealth check, you add a +20 on top of your usual modifier. There is no "Move Silently" skill in PF, it's just Stealth... So whether or not it makes your quieter doesn't matter. Is it a Stealth check? Then you get a +20 bonus.
It doesn't make you magically silent (like the Silence spell does) but it does make you better at moving silently. It's not absolute silence, but it's quieter than normal.
It doesn't make you magically silent (like the Silence spell does) but it does make you better at moving silently. It's not absolute silence, but it's quieter than normal.
It doesn't say as per silence. It says it doesn't make you magically quieter. It's not like the a spell would make you mundanely quieter.
How are you rolling that, then? Are you just telling the player "well, you cast invisibility but you're going to make noise so I'm not going to give you the stealth bonus". That seems abundantly silly to me.How would it have been ruled when move silently and hide in shadows were separate? Move silently would gain no bonus. Hide in shadows would. Or in this case you have a bonus to all the visual aspects of stealth, but receive no bonus in regards to noise. So if your roll plus twenty succeeds against his perception check but without the twenty fails then you were heard but not seen. So they know someone is there, but they don't know where they are. Seems fairly simple.
Incidentally, it ups the value of the stealth skill again, as it would take TWO spells to completely replace its uses.
Well, unfortunately move silently and hide in shadows aren't separated. It's the same check. You're proposing a house rule. Could be a nice house rule but I'm kinda biased in favor of anything that makes the life of a caster more difficult.
The spell says it doesn't make you quieter. There is really no way around that explicit wording without adding words to the spell like "as per the spell silence"
Oh, sorry guys, you should stop interacting with marthkus on this.
I tried before, because he thought adamantine weapons lowered the hardness of an object by twenty, instead of bypassing hardness of objects 20 or lower.
You basically cannot engage him when he misunderstands something
Bypass means bypass.
]EDIT: Ok the spell doesn't make me quieter. What does the +20 to stealth do. Remember the stealth rules!
Specific rules (the spell) override general rules.
The most you can claim is non-spell sources of invisibility make you quieter.
Yeah, I think I'll follow CW's suggestion on this one.