In my home games, I have a long established house rule that all somatic, verbal, and material components for spells are the same for that specific spell. I.e. whenever someone casts fireball their hand motions, spoken words, and the materials they consume are always the same.
Many times I see players attempting to role play their own somatic and/or verbal components to either a) customize the feel of their spellcaster [not the bad part] or b) get around rules involving such spell components to abuse them.
Example: a player wanted to say that he only uses one hand motion, the snap of his finger, to cast fireball. If his hand is held down and he otherwise does not have use of his hands he can still cast this spell. That's abuse number one. Abuse number two is that if his opponents do not know his specific somatic components, then they cannot identify the spell that is being cast.
I have been scorned as a rules lawyer/badwrongfun DM for not allowing such use in my games, because to bluff the components of a spell to confuse your opponents one must have the Spell Bluff feat.
It also directly interferes with the way the Spellcraft skill works in that in order for one to identify a spell as it is being cast, there must be some uniform way that the spell is identified less the mechanic loses any logical sense in its usage.
I also carry this over to activation words on weapon special abilities and other word activated magic items. This prevents characters from having multiple enchantments that otherwise would not be able to be active at the same time keyed to the same command word allowing the player to double up on magical effects without spending more time or actions on them as the game was designed.
Are there any rules to support this? I understand the boringness that going that in-depth into the magic chapter of the core book would cause, and so I understand the vagueness of the rules behind somatic and verbal components may be intentional.
The uniform way that spells are identified using Spellcraft have nothing to do with somatic, material or verbal components. This is evidenced by the fact that Eschew Materials provides no penalty to identifying the spell, nor the Still or Silent Spell metamagics. Common tongue-in-cheek reasoning on the boards is that, because of the way Paizo art is drawn, that actual runes materialize around the caster's hands when a spell is cast.
Essentially, yes, you are waaaaaay overdoing it. There are no rules on what the somatic components of spells look like, nor what the verbal components sound like other than that it must be in a clear speaking voice and not a whisper. Material components are listed, but because of component pouches and Eschew Materials, anything under 1 gp are almost exclusively listed for flavor reasons, and many are little jokes about the nature of the spell.
Let you players roleplay. Don't give them a mechanical bonus or penalty for waving their hands one way or another that's different from how another caster would wave their hands for a spell. As long as a spell with a Somatic component results in the caster doing something somatic, then the basis is covered. Same with verbal. The check to identify is the same regardless, so why spoil the role playing of a roleplaying game?
Personal opinion is that you're overdoing it. If a spell component pouch says "A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn't fit in a pouch." I take that to mean you don't have to say, "I pull out a firefly and cast dancing lights". It just seems it's meant to move things along.
That said, you can assume they did pull out a firefly and their opponents did see them do it. You can also say, "no, your hands were held, you can't cast that spell". You're the DM. Move the game along and let everybody have fun.
All of the above is personal opinion. :)
I guess my players in that particular game were just munchkins to the max, because they wanted to put all of the elemental enchantments on the same weapon and have them all activated by the same command word, to gain +4d6 damage on attack rolls.
For that purpose I didn't feel I was overdoing it, just wondered if anyone else had this issue come up.
so why spoil the role playing of a roleplaying game?
Because they were demanding mechanical bonuses for it.
In my home games, I have a long established house rule that all somatic, verbal, and material components for spells are the same for that specific spell. I.e. whenever someone casts fireball their hand motions, spoken words, and the materials they consume are always the same.This is your problem... because you made a determination of exactitude, your players saw it as an opening to make slight variation a method of spell disguise.
My house rule came as a result of the shenanigans, it was established after the players tried to tell me that enemies cannot identify their spells because of their unique components.
Also I am surprised by the lack of input on the command word fiasco.
I've always seem verbal and somatic components as largely flavor as long as your character is saying something and doing some kind of movement. One character might want to do ninja handsigns and proudly exclaim the name of their attack, another might want to make it look like a fireball is forming in the palm of their hand as the go on a small diatribe about how badly the enemy is about to have their butt handed to them, and yet another might do the cucaracha while singing a yiddish folk tale. All of these get off the exact same Fireball spell, but each of them does it in their own way.
To me, all of this makes sense since in the PHB, not sure about the CRB, the entire reason you can't just use another Wizard's spellbook as your own is that everyone has their own formula to produce a given effect.
What is wrong with letting them key all of the activations to one word? It is awesome to say your battle phrase as your sword explodes into flame and electricity.I guess my players in that particular game were just munchkins to the max, because they wanted to put all of the elemental enchantments on the same weapon and have them all activated by the same command word, to gain +4d6 damage on attack rolls.
For that purpose I didn't feel I was overdoing it, just wondered if anyone else had this issue come up.
An extra 4d6 damage per swing mostly, meaning a Hasted character does 12-16 d6 damage from weapon enchantments alone in a full round attack.
What is wrong with letting them key all of the activations to one word? It is awesome to say your battle phrase as your sword explodes into flame and electricity.An extra 4d6 damage per swing mostly, meaning a Hasted character does 12-16 d6 damage from weapon enchantments alone in a full round attack.Which cost them a minimum of 50k. At 50k, I definitely want my flashy abilities up all the time. That also means I'm sacrificing other very useful abilities, such as Keen or even another +1.
And some of that damage is subject to very common resistances.
Unless the character makes it himself, and has the improved critical feat or a divine bond ability and can add keen to the weapon normally.
An extra 4d6 damage per swing mostly, meaning a Hasted character does 12-16 d6 damage from weapon enchantments alone in a full round attack.
This is as intended, I believe. The elemental enchantments can be turned on and off with no time duration. Each is a +1 enhancement, and it has to be on a +1 weapon. They are losing out on +4 to hit and +4 damage. AND, don't forget, their weapon damage won't be slicing through DR, only their elemental damage (again, subject to resistance). All in all, it's about the same as just using a +5 weapon instead.
Spellcraft specifically calls out being able to identify a spell as it's being cast, and somatic components still exist (and need a free hand) unless they use Still Spell. They can fluff that however they like, but the mechanics is still the same.
EDIT: Keep in mind… crafting time is a resource too. When did they have 50 days of free time? Starting a campaign, it's often a good idea to cap the amount of pre-game crafting. That said, they blew a feat on it. Energy resistance, DR, and high ACs are all balancing factors.
An extra 4d6 damage per swing mostly, meaning a Hasted character does 12-16 d6 damage from weapon enchantments alone in a full round attack.This is as intended, I believe. The elemental enchantments can be turned on and off with no time duration. Each is a +1 enhancement, and it has to be on a +1 weapon. They are losing out on +4 to hit and +4 damage. AND, don't forget, their weapon damage won't be slicing through DR, only their elemental damage (again, subject to resistance). All in all, it's about the same as just using a +5 weapon instead.
Spellcraft specifically calls out being able to identify a spell as it's being cast, and somatic components still exist (and need a free hand) unless they use Still Spell. They can fluff that however they like, but the mechanics is still the same.
Greater magic weapon is a thing.
No, as far as I am aware, there are no rules to support your stance on uniform spellcasting master_marshmallow.
-Nearyn
Greater magic weapon is a thing.
Sure. It doesn't get around DR, and they're spending a useful slot on it. It doesn't stack with the +1, of course. That leaves you with energy resistance and DR as balancing factors, now with dispelling as an additional possibility.
Besides, even if you required four separate command words, they could leave it permanently on and unsheathed while exploring. If there is a rules-legal, silly, immersion-breaking option, then let them do things the easy way instead.
I believe the intent of the command word for Flaming et al. is to be able to turn it off when sheathing the weapon. I could be wrong there, though.
I think it's separate. I don't feel right when things that take standard actions get waved into taking less time. It's a standard for a command word, I don't like if all the command words are the same word. But I don't currently have off the top of my head any rules or text to support that they all couldn't be the same word.
Greater magic weapon is a thing.Sure. It doesn't get around DR, and they're spending a useful slot on it. It doesn't stack with the +1, of course. That leaves you with energy resistance and DR as balancing factors, now with dispelling as an additional possibility.
Damage Reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon (in addition to any alignment it may already have).
Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.
No where does it say that the enhancement bonus cannot come from Greater Magic Weapon.
Besides, even if you required four separate command words, they could leave it permanently on and unsheathed while exploring. If there is a rules-legal, silly, immersion-breaking option, then let them do things the easy way instead.
The effect remains until another command is given.
The search engine is your friend. Use it to find any of the many, many threads on why there's no rule that the spellcraft check gets any harder if the spell being cast is stilled, silent and eschews materials, although it DOES take perception check modifiers for distance and other factors.
No where does it say that the enhancement bonus cannot come from Greater Magic Weapon.
Spell description. It's the same for Magic Greater Fang.
No where does it say that the enhancement bonus cannot come from Greater Magic Weapon.Spell description. It's the same for Magic Greater Fang.
Good catch, I was reading the wrong part of the rules.
I have no problem with the players having unique spell components, but I agree that they cannot use this to claim their spells are unidentifiable while casting and do not require a free hand for the somatic component.
I have no problem with the players having unique spell components, but I agree that they cannot use this to claim their spells are unidentifiable while casting and do not require a free hand for the somatic component.
Now if they want to combine it with a bluff, I ruled that he needed the Spell Bluff feat.
I got called out as being too rule-mongery.
There's a few examples of bluff being used to disguise spellcasting in PFS scenarios.
Obviously that's not a rules source, but it works and makes for a funner game in my opinion.
The 4-element sword really isn't that good for the price, as others have said. For the money they could get a +6 Stat item and have 14,000gp to spare. It's probably weaker than a straight +5 sword.
Flavoring the spellcasting components is fun (I have an archaeologist bard who 'casts' her spells with clever mechanical/alchemical gadgets), but getting mechanical benefits is asking for too much.
I have no problem with the players having unique spell components, but I agree that they cannot use this to claim their spells are unidentifiable while casting and do not require a free hand for the somatic component.Now if they want to combine it with a bluff, I ruled that he needed the Spell Bluff feat.
I got called out as being too rule-mongery.
I probably would let them just try to bluff.
In darksun arcane casters are despised, so by nature they can bluff to disguise their casting as psionic emanation or clerical magic casting. Granted, it never made an official conversion to 3.0, but some people did a pretty thorough conversion to 3.5 that kept that mechanic.
I still have them somewhere if you want me to dig them up.
If Bluff works to disguise a spell, then why does the Spell Bluff feat exist?
a +4 equivalent weapon that does 4x1d6 elemental damage is not broken in the slightest. The elemental enchantments are at best only marginally useful compared to things like keen, agile, bane etc. Often bypassing DR is more useful anyway.
If you are worried about that being 'broken', I highly doubt your players are the munchkins you are making them out to be.
In my experience If a spell has a somatic component you must be free to move around. A caster that is bound would have to succeed a concentration check and even then the spell would be subject to arcane fail.... I'm pretty sure I have read rules on this in Core. I'll go hunting.
Entangled: If you want to cast a spell while entangled in a net or by a tanglefoot bag or while you're affected by a spell with similar effects, you must make a concentration check to cast the spell (DC 15 + the level of the spell you're casting). You lose the spell if you fail.
So snapping your fingers while you are tied up doesn't work outright. A check must be made.
Combining Magic Effects
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn't have a type stacks with any bonus.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.
Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.
And that's how stacking works...
If Bluff works to disguise a spell, then why does the Spell Bluff feat exist?
In the examples I was thinking of, bluff was used to disguise spell casting as singing/dancing or other activities. Spell Bluff just makes the spellcraft check to ID the spell harder.
The real question is: Of what use is spell bluff?
The real question is: Of what use is spell bluff?
Since making a spellcraft check is part of using a readied action to dispel, Spell Bluff is (slightly) useful if you feel that your opponent is identifying your spell as you cast it and using the appropriate counter-spell (rather than simply using dispel magic).
In my home games, I have a long established house rule that all somatic, verbal, and material components for spells are the same for that specific spell. I.e. whenever someone casts fireball their hand motions, spoken words, and the materials they consume are always the same.This is your problem... because you made a determination of exactitude, your players saw it as an opening to make slight variation a method of spell disguise.My house rule came as a result of the shenanigans, it was established after the players tried to tell me that enemies cannot identify their spells because of their unique components.
Also I am surprised by the lack of input on the command word fiasco.
That is why you must make the spellcraft check, because they aren't the same every time. If every spell looked the same every time then casters would automatically be able to spot spells they know. Just like you don't gave to roll knowledge religion checks every time you fight skeletons. After the first fight you know they have dr 5/ bludgeoning.
The spellcraft check is there because you have to use your magical knowledge to figure out what spell is being cast, because it is different every time. Think of it like playing different versions of the same song. Two different performers are never going to be the same and some may vary wildly.
On the multiple stacked enhancements..... Why not? 50300gp for +1 attack and +15 damage (unless enemy has energy resistance) vs 50300 for +5 to hit and +5 damage, plus overcomes all material based and alignment based DR's. The plus to hit naked the regular +5 way more powerful because that extra to hit carries the full weapon damage with it. Basically, don't sweat stuff that isn't really a problem and try to avoid confirmation bias when you think something is too powerful.
|
I guess my players in that particular game were just munchkins to the max, because they wanted to put all of the elemental enchantments on the same weapon and have them all activated by the same command word, to gain +4d6 damage on attack rolls.
The problem (for your players) is that activating a magic such a property is a standard action. So that's four standard actions. It doesn't really matter that they use the same command word; you're still spending four actions.
"Abracadabra" with intent to activate flaming -> flaming activates.
"Abracadabra" with intent to activate frost -> frost activates.
etc.
That said, that activation rule is really dumb. Even spending ONE action activating the property is a disaster. Even if activating it didn't cost ANY action, a +5, +4 Keen or +3 Impact weapon would probably be a lot better.
A significant number of monsters is going to be immune/resistant to some of your bonus damage, while the +3/4/5 weapon penetrates most DR. The additional to-hit chance means that if you had a decent base damage, you'll do a lot more damage on average. And it allows you to hit monsters that you previously could barely touch.
|
|
so why spoil the role playing of a roleplaying game?Because they were demanding mechanical bonuses for it.
Considering the OP:
Let them change the components, just refuse to attach mechanical consequences.
You can't satisfy Somatic components if you can't properly move the hand, even if you only need to snap your fingers. Rule.
You have unusual Somatic components. Spellcraft doesn't care. Rule. Go ahead and RP that you have an exotic casting style; Spellcraft doesn't care, because it can even identify spells that have NO components left. Rule.
No need to push everyone in a straightjacket on how to cast their spells, but don't let them twist that into an unfair advantage.
Oh, and insist on the canonical material component for Spider Climb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my home games, I have a long established house rule that all somatic, verbal, and material components for spells are the same for that specific spell. I.e. whenever someone casts fireball their hand motions, spoken words, and the materials they consume are always the same.This is your problem... because you made a determination of exactitude, your players saw it as an opening to make slight variation a method of spell disguise.My house rule came as a result of the shenanigans, it was established after the players tried to tell me that enemies cannot identify their spells because of their unique components.
Also I am surprised by the lack of input on the command word fiasco.
The book does not allow them to use customized material components to hide spells. That is all you had to say. That way no house rule is needed.
The book does not allow them to use customized material components to hide spells. That is all you had to say. That way no house rule is needed.In my home games, I have a long established house rule that all somatic, verbal, and material components for spells are the same for that specific spell. I.e. whenever someone casts fireball their hand motions, spoken words, and the materials they consume are always the same.This is your problem... because you made a determination of exactitude, your players saw it as an opening to make slight variation a method of spell disguise.My house rule came as a result of the shenanigans, it was established after the players tried to tell me that enemies cannot identify their spells because of their unique components.
Also I am surprised by the lack of input on the command word fiasco.
Nor does it infer anything about custom command words being possible.
I have been scorned as a rules lawyer/badwrongfun DM for not allowing such use in my games, because to bluff the components of a spell to confuse your opponents one must have the Spell Bluff feat.
I also carry this over to activation words on weapon special abilities and other word activated magic items. This prevents characters from having multiple enchantments that otherwise would not be able to be active at the same time keyed to the same command word allowing the player to double up on magical effects without spending more time or actions on them as the game was designed.
Bluffing the aspects of casting a spell isn't all that different from controlling your body language while telling a deliberate lie, so the Bluff skill seems like a reasonable alternative/additional resource in addition to the feat. It still draws upon a spent resource (skill points) that requires that the player invests an effort into making it happen, but is perfectly in line with both the Bluff skill and the fact that standard perception modifiers are part of even knowing that a spell is being cast.
I see no harm in multiple activations at once. Even if self crafted, you are still talking many thousands of gp, months of downtime between adventures, and effects that have their own limitations built into them already. I would actually see a single activation as the default, honestly; very few crafters, especially those making their own stuff, are going to complicate activating their shiny tricks by not giving themselves the possibility of activating all at once. I see it as part of the escalating cost that comes with imping an item from +1 to +2 to +3 and so on. If that's the worst thing your players are trying to abuse, you're lucky; if it's not, there are better things to crack down on to limit the player's abuses.