pennywit wrote: (And, if you must know, the PCs were pretty well-known in the area AND this particular battle was the final act in a rather elaborate trap that had been set for the PCs.) Then it's totally acceptable (note that this isn't sarcasm but a legitimate statement).
claudekennilol wrote: pennywit wrote: (And, if you must know, the PCs were pretty well-known in the area AND this particular battle was the final act in a rather elaborate trap that had been set for the PCs.) Then it's totally acceptable (note that this isn't sarcasm but a legitimate statement). It was actually one of our more memorable sessions. The setting was a ruined keep, and my players still get the heebie-jeebies when they think about it.
Besides, what self respecting BBEG doesn't have a network of spies. All it takes is one goblin lurking in the shadows taking notes on the party during combat and reporting back to his master.
Goblin Scout: "Yo, Master Homie! That wizard dawg in that gang attacking. His gat is hella-powerful, yo."
BBEG: "Word"
That Crazy Alchemist wrote: Besides, what self respecting BBEG doesn't have a network of spies. All it takes is one goblin lurking in the shadows taking notes on the party during combat and reporting back to his master.
Goblin Scout: "Yo, Master Homie! That wizard dawg in that gang attacking. His gat is hella-powerful, yo."
BBEG: "Word"
Goblin Notes; stick figures drawn using a burnt stick (or less pleasant substances).
Artanthos wrote: Tiny Coffee Golem wrote: Epsilon wrote: I would rather just use the false focus feat and holy symbol tattoo. Then I only have to keep track of components greater than 100 gp. If forced to keep track of spell components I'd do the exact same thing. Every. Single. Time. Same here. Yep. I can't see ANYONE not doing so and actually keeping track of everything.
pennywit wrote:
In my experience, it gets used all the time for taking away weapons, spell component pouches, and wands. It's one of the more versatile spells out there.
I've always found it fairly useless once you take the minuses into account. For example, those weapons and wand are all at -4 unless you are also using a weapon do to this: "Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack." Nothing in the spell says you count as armed. For the spell component pouches, you give the other person at least a +5 CMD because "Items fastened to a foe (such as cloaks, sheathed weapons, or pouches) are more difficult to take, and give the opponent a +5 bonus (or greater) to his CMD."
So it's got a poor chance to work on martial types and maybe a 50% on casters. Better to blast or buff/de-buff IMO.
Great think about holy symbol tattoo is it is a lot harder to get rid of kinda. Erase spell or other method of damaging it. If your also worried about it being destroy have a few backup holy symbol tattoos hidden on your body. Oh you erased my tattoo on my hand *reveals symbol on [insert open spot on body]* 50 gold to craft your own tattoo that's worth 100g. Only requirement is it has to not be covered if your going to use it.
Benefits:
-No dealing with sunder spell component pouch.
-Don't have to worry about it being stolen, lost, etc ...
-Screw it with keeping track of materials < 100 g
-Depending on GM allowing the use of free power components (when used as material components) from adventures armory and alchemy manual. Note: Made the argument already for why it should be allowed not going to argue it here.
Downside:
-Very easy to tell which deity you worship
-Difficult to infiltrate cults different from deity.
-May in the case of my character (worships Desna) be the target of enemy worshipers i.e. Lamashtu clerics and such.
-Screwed if spellcaster has erase and you don't have backup tattoo's
-Gives your GM some ideas about enemies you may face. (When doesn't this happen though)
claudekennilol wrote: pennywit wrote: claudekennilol wrote: pennywit wrote:
My philosophy as a GM is that if your character has an obvious weakness, once in a while your enemies are going to exploit that weakness.
If that PC wizard had never seen your party before, that's an awful lot of meta-gaming. Unless the NPC was also an arcane-bonded adversary with a very long spell book he wouldn't have been able to cast it--I highly doubt he would have had that spell prepared. Or if spontaneous, I doubt he would have even known that spell. Just to be clear, the NPC adversary, an arcane spellcaster with a high Spellcraft skill, used Pilfering Hand on the PC wizard. I (the GM) had put Pilfering Hand among the NPC's spells as a utility spell that could have been used on anybody in the PC party. Right, and I'm saying that no one ever prepares that spell so the fact that he had it without the NPC knowing anything about the party is awfully meta-gamey that he just happened to have it and just happened to steal the arcane bonded item. What I'm saying is there's no way that NPC could have known that he would want to steal that item (or anything for that matter) and have had that spell prepared (or known if spontaneous as they have a very limited number of spells known) without having in depth knowledge about the party before hand. There's nothing about an arcane bonded item that indicates what it is. Every game I'm in the caster is wielding a weapon of sometime just so he can threaten in case someone gets up close. So that he used his one cast of it (again, assuming not spontaneous) to just happen to steal the weapon from the guy casting spells is awfully suspect when it would have suited him better to steal the weapon from the guy trying to beat on his face (again, this is assuming he didn't have in depth knowledge about the party).
If you've seen that spell used in games then maybe your experience differs from mine. I've never seen a single PC/NPC use that spell. Then you're the one lacking experience here.
Nothing metagame about a caster who has a spell prepared to remove a powerful or useful object from an enemy.
I have used it in games as a player. So have other players in my gaming group. Plus, this is far less debilitating than just using an NPC to sunder it.
In short, don't be so quick to judge other peoples actions as metagame, just because you've never seen it done.
Not much to add that wasn't covered other than:
Components that won't fit into a pouch also would not be available with a spell component pouch even with negligible costs.
I can't think of any off hand, at least not ones that don't already have a cost and thus would require tracking anyhow, but there could be some.
A pillow for instance, or a... long wood spoon, maybe a peacock feather or just a really long feather (that had to be in good shape, not broken). It's possible there's one or two.
Some spells have rods or 'small rods' listed as focuses, but those are admittedly debatable as to size-to-pouch-ratio (not that I want to debate about it).
Pizza Lord wrote: Components that won't fit into a pouch also would not be available with a spell component pouch even with negligible costs. List of standard unpriced components here.
'A lantern' is an example of a component that probably wouldn't fit in the pouch.
Matthew Downie wrote: 'A lantern' is an example of a component that probably wouldn't fit in the pouch. Yes, but a lantern has an actual price to it, just like the focus for the acid arrow spell is a dart. Just because a price isn't listed in the spell description doesn't mean it has negligible cost. A dart has a specific cost (5 sp), so that 'does' have to be noted in a PC's inventory because it won't be included in a spell component pouch.
There are similar items, like silver pins, or silver rods, or crystal rods. They don't have a cost listed in the spell's but can be assumed to have a specific cost that can be located somewhere, or at least easily be accepted as not having 'Cost: -'.
So yes, while a lantern would qualify I didn't mention it because as an item with a non-negligible cost, it already has to be tracked.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pizza Lord wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: 'A lantern' is an example of a component that probably wouldn't fit in the pouch. Yes, but a lantern has an actual price to it, just like the focus for the acid arrow spell is a dart. Just because a price isn't listed in the spell description doesn't mean it has negligible cost. A dart has a specific cost (5 sp), so that 'does' have to be noted in a PC's inventory because it won't be included in a spell component pouch.
There are similar items, like silver pins, or silver rods, or crystal rods. They don't have a cost listed in the spell's but can be assumed to have a specific cost that can be located somewhere, or at least easily be accepted as not having 'Cost: -'.
So yes, while a lantern would qualify I didn't mention it because as an item with a non-negligible cost, it already has to be tracked. From: http://paizo.com/prd/magic.html
Material (M): A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.
Focus (F): A focus component is a prop of some sort. Unlike a material component, a focus is not consumed when the spell is cast and can be reused. As with material components, the cost for a focus is negligible unless a price is given. Assume that focus components of negligible cost are in your spell component pouch.
Acid Arrow:
Components V, S, M (rhubarb leaf and an adder's stomach), F (a dart)
Since a cost isn't given it is negligible, regardless if it is a focus or a material component. As long as a price isn't listed in the spell description it is considered negligible cost.
The dart is still negligible since it doesn't list a price for the spell in the description. It says specifically you don't need to keep track of it since no price is given.
Pizza Lord wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: 'A lantern' is an example of a component that probably wouldn't fit in the pouch. Yes, but a lantern has an actual price to it, just like the focus for the acid arrow spell is a dart. Just because a price isn't listed in the spell description doesn't mean it has negligible cost. A dart has a specific cost (5 sp), so that 'does' have to be noted in a PC's inventory because it won't be included in a spell component pouch. Don't assume that the "dart" in the spell component pouch is the same as the "dart" in the weapons list. The example was given in the other thread of a candle, which according to rule burns for an hour. That's a fairly substantial candle by real-world standards, and I can easily buy candles at the store that are much smaller, lighter, cheaper, less bright, and might be the type used to cast spells instead. (Usually these candles go on birthday cakes, of course.) Similarly, I can fold a tiny little dart out of paper, but it wouldn't be very useful in combat.
Similarly, the mirror needed to cast mirror strike is not useful for shaving or signalling, and the bell needed for the alarm spell doesn't make enough noise to be useful.
Sorry, if a spell says it calls for a blanket or a tablecloth, you can't just take your cloak off and lay it on the table or fall prone and drape it over you and claim, "Well now my cloak is a tablecloth/blanket." If the focus says Dart, and it's pretty obvious what a dart is in regards to acid arrow then it doesn't mean a picture of a dart, it doesn't mean an illusory dart, it doesn't mean you can cast acid arrows if you are sitting in a Dodge Dart.
I can understand what you're trying to say; that the dart that costs 5 sp is a 'war dart' and that a 'game dart' like you find in a pub might not be the same thing.
An ogre might use a knife as a toothpick, he might even call it a toothpick, and technically if he's picking his teeth with it it could, by certain standards, be dubbed a toothpick, but it would not be permissible for a focus that called for a toothpick.
With multiple different types of lanterns, it's entirely reasonable that they didn't add in the price for a lantern because lanterns come in all different prices and they didn't want to list a whole line of possible prices or spell out the list of all types of lanterns? I think everyone would agree that several different types of lanterns would qualify as acceptable and that they don't necessarily have a set price. Don't you think that sounds like a really reasonable explanation?
That's beside the point, however, because even if you want to claim that a bullseye lantern or a hooded lantern does not have a cost, if the item is too big to fit into a pouch, a spell component pouch will not provide it.
That's the thing it does have negligible cost for the spell therefore as long as you have the pouch its "free." Read the rules that I posted. Since no cost is listed in the spell description its assumed you have it in the pouch. Too make some keep track of items that have negligible cost is a dick move. Dart costs nothing for acid arrow, you have it if you have the pouch.
Pizza Lord wrote: That's beside the point, however, because even if you want to claim that a bullseye lantern or a hooded lantern does not have a cost, if the item is too big to fit into a pouch, a spell component pouch will not provide it. If the lantern isn't a focus, then it is in the pouch.
Looking at spells that take a lantern, it is in fact a focus for Dancing Lantern. Which, surprise, animates the lantern you are casting it on. So yes, you would need the actual costed lantern because it can't fit in a pouch.
I'll admit I didn't filter for focuses in my list I made, my bad.
Likewise though, a dart certainly can fit in a pouch, and so a spell component pouch contains one. Notice though, its a focus, and not a material component, so the pouch only has one dart in it because its not used on casting.
Actually focus are also in the pouch. Did no on read my post? A focus with negligible cost is also in the pouch.
Assume that focus components of negligible cost are in your spell component pouch.
Straight from the rules on magic.
Dancing Lantern:
Components V, S, F (a lantern)
The lantern is also a negligible cost so it is also is assumed to be in the pouch.
Maybe a pouch is a small bag of holding?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Epsilon wrote: Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. I wouldn't take that too far. Transformation has a potion of Bull's Strength as a component. The cost of the potion isn't given in the spell description, but it is given elsewhere.
You cut out an important part.
Quote: Spell Component Pouch: 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. A lantern doesn't fit in a pouch, so it is not included. A dart can fit in a pouch so it is included. Because the dart is a focus, there is only 1 dart, not an unlimited dart supply in the pouch.
Matthew Downie wrote: Epsilon wrote: Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. I wouldn't take that too far. Transformation has a potion of Bull's Strength as a component. The cost of the potion isn't given in the spell description, but it is given elsewhere. The potion bit is obvious that you need the potion. Lantern is still negligible.
You know what just looked at the pouch.
Spell Component Pouch
Price 5 gp; Weight 2 lbs.
A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn't fit in a pouch. Most spell component pouches are waterproof and can be strung onto a belt or bandolier.
So never mind about the lantern. Unless it is a very tiny lantern lol.
Epsilon wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: Epsilon wrote: Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. I wouldn't take that too far. Transformation has a potion of Bull's Strength as a component. The cost of the potion isn't given in the spell description, but it is given elsewhere. The potion bit is obvious that you need the potion. Lantern is still negligible. Yes, you obviously need a potion, listed elsewhere as costing 300gp. Doesn't 'Lantern' make it obvious that you need a lantern, which has a listed cost of 7gp or whatever?
Read my last post. I said never mind ignore my comment about it being negligible. Unless you could craft a very tiny lantern and stick it in your pouch.
Matthew Downie wrote: Epsilon wrote: Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. I wouldn't take that too far. Transformation has a potion of Bull's Strength as a component. The cost of the potion isn't given in the spell description, but it is given elsewhere.
Matthew, I think you found the silver bullet. Additionally, the fact that it mentions that the Material component has 'normal' effects (which get subsumed) for what the component is would indicate that items are not 'pseudo replicas' or useless, assuming anyone still tries that argument.
Does that mean a piece of chalk in your spell component pouch is as functional as an equal piece of chalk anywhere else? Does a mirror used as a a component reflect things? Yes.
Could some things be abused? Yes, but that's why we have to be vigilant against things that make no sense. The game realizes that most people don't want to track pinches of carrots, that doesn't mean you get unlimited carrots. Maybe if the player just needs one or two nails suddenly, you can let it slide, but a DM is also within rights to say they run out of nails.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I like to keep things simple. Things do what they say they do.
The pouch provides components and focuses for spellcasting (with the aforementioned limitations) and THAT'S IT. Its description does not say that these components can be used for anything other than spellcasting so they won't be in my games.
Same as thieves' tools really.
I'd argue that the Bull's Strength potion component is an omission that should be errata'd, not a sudden invalidation of every other case where the very clear rules apply (as quoted above--if the cost isn't in the description, components don't have a cost). For the same reason, forcing ranged users to track their inventories in a way that magicians and melee fighters don't is just a bad application of the abstraction, not an excuse to make the game more boring for everyone.
The spell component pouch is a rule abstraction that exists to simplify life. There's no point in trying to extrapolate the consequences of infinite butter or whatever other nonsense--the spell component pouch is a "just so" object that contains exactly what you need to cast those spells, and whatever happens to be inside of it at any other time is useless for any other purpose, unless there is some specific reason for the GM to rule otherwise in a particular situation (because that is the GM's prerogative, in any situation, for any rule). The only "magic" behind these "just so" properties is the magic of narrative effect--just like novels don't go into excruciating detail about every time the characters eat breakfast, RPGs gloss over some of the more boring item management.
It is specifically not trying to set up an absurd thought exercise for armchair fantasy physics, and attempting to do so is either playing for laughs or missing the point, which is that game abstractions exist to make a game fun, not to endlessly describe every monotonous detail of a fantasy simulation.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
transformation is an old dated spell, to be sure.
but ultimately this comes down to, the pouch being a way to have physical components and not have to track them. no more, no less.
slitherrr wrote: I'd argue that the Bull's Strength potion component is an omission that should be errata'd, not a sudden invalidation of every other case where the very clear rules apply (as quoted above--if the cost isn't in the description, components don't have a cost). "Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible."
It doesn't say "in the description". If the cost is given elsewhere in the rules, I'd say by RAW you should pay it.
Although I agree that in practice it makes sense to handwave it most of the time.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Matthew Downie wrote:
It doesn't say "in the description"
It doesn't need to say that to be reasonably interpreted as meaning that. The spell component pouch very obviously exists to stop people from having to bother with inane bookkeeping, and the interpretation that supports that is "if a cost isn't given in the description, it doesn't cost". Likewise, the Transformation component is pretty obviously a failure to be completely consistent in the descriptions (probably an interaction with a desire to have fewer things to change when stuff inevitably changes costs in a rewrite, which isn't a problem when the component is "amount of MacGuffin" where the end cost is completely arbitrary), not a sudden case where potions of Bull's Strength are free. It's less tedious and more useful to keep track of all my Bull's Strength potions, it is more tedious and less useful to keep track of my stack of tiny lanterns and rancid butter.
I hope that Unchained will have a section on legacy issues in the magic system. I'd like to see not only inexpensive spell components abandoned as an unfunny joke between Gygax and Arneson, but expensive components made to simply eat coins from your purse or any gem indiscriminately. The Paizo team doesn't appear to have considered gem availability when they turned XP costs into expensive material components.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
