|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm requesting PFS leadership reconsider the ban on Blood Money. This spell allowed for some spellcasters to get a few spells which required expensive material components cheaper or for free with some STR damage considerations normally later in their career (stoneskin being a prime example.) While a nice perk it doesn't mechanically change anything you could do in society play by simply having gold. Mechanically it is worse than having gold: you must know/prepare the spell, spend a swift action, and take STR damage.
I personally bought Rise of the Runelords anniversary edition for some of the few spells it contains. While a fantastic product on its own I'm a bit disheartened to see one of the spells recently given away on a chronicle sheet and this one just banned after spending $60 on the book. It makes me feel like I can't trust this product and many other products recently to provide the content they have written.
Again, blood money is normally a couple hundred gold in savings normally once a scenario with some drawback considerations and a particularly heavy real world cost to obtain compared to other options. Could we please repeal the banning of this spell?
|
|
Is bringing back dead characters an issue for people? Considering breathe of life, ultimate mercy, and other options can already do so for no cost I'm curious why this method is offensive. It seems to me that if you dedicate your character to it you can sometimes benefit your allies greatly wouldn't be a negative mark against this option.
You also can't use these options to revive yourself. This is purely for the benefit of your party members.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's simple really, many loud voices in the player base(especially those who GM) hate the spell. And honestly, the only real reason I can see for that is because of theorycraft threads.
With the limitations in PFS you can't even perform those deeds either, for the most part, since often they include how to get wish 'free'.
The most broken I am aware of is that it would allow a wizard to create undead without spending coin and thus a 'viable' option for PFS.
I don't consider a witch being able to rez without a coin cost being broken, rather it's a nice perk for the class.
|
|
The only problems I see with the spell require you to be a healing patron witch, in which case you can raise the dead, remove negative levels, and remove your own strength damage afterwards...
A high level Razmir priest sorcerer can do the same, but they have to pay for scrolls first.
Actually, the best way to do that with blood money is to be an Elven Ancient Lorekeeper Oracle and get blood money on your list, or to take a level dip in a class that can use it.
Razmirian Priest can do free raise deads only at levels 12+.
Is bringing back dead characters an issue for people? Considering breathe of life, ultimate mercy, and other options can already do so for no cost I'm curious why this method is offensive. It seems to me that if you dedicate your character to it you can sometimes benefit your allies greatly wouldn't be a negative mark against this option.
I think the point is that it cheapens the cost (literally) of death. And yes ultimate mercy exists too, which does kind of cause a false sense of getting rid of free raise deads (...which is why I ban Ultimate Mercy and (now) Razmirian Priest in my home games, along with restricting Blood Money to spells of 1 full round or less and only if you are possessing your own body, and I don't allow Sensei monks to use Restoration on everyone).
Edit: I do feel for anyone who bought the book and now can't use the spell that probably a large portion of people bought the book to use. Honestly, I'm surprised it wasn't banned *sooner*.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One reason it may have been removed is that there is a rules debate that has never been resolved about exactly what Dylos is suggesting.
When are the material components of a spell that takes longer than one round to complete (like raise dead) used up?
There is no published answer but there are many reasonable interpretations on how they are spent (as soon as you start casting, incrementally over the course of the spell, or when the spell completes). There were some massive table variations as to the usefulness of blood money depending on how the GM interprets the component consumption.
The straightforward gold savings can actually add up quite a bit, even if you don't talk about multiclassing. Just using stoneskin as an example, there are many scenarios where you have several days travel (sometimes you don't know how many) in front of you. On a 5 day journey where you get ambushed twice blood money has saved you 1250 gp. This plays into the "opportunity cost" argument as well. It makes stoneskin something you keep up all the time instead of only casting it when combat starts or you are almost certain it is about to.
Having said all that it is frustrating for the players who spent $60 solely to cast that one spell. It would have been better to never have it on the legal list but sometimes issues aren't noticed until the options become widespread.
|
|
The only problems I see with the spell require you to be a healing patron witch, in which case you can raise the dead, remove negative levels, and remove your own strength damage afterwards...
A high level Razmir priest sorcerer can do the same, but they have to pay for scrolls first.
Actually, the best way to do that with blood money is to be an Elven Ancient Lorekeeper Oracle and get blood money on your list, or to take a level dip in a class that can use it.
Razmirian Priest can do free raise deads only at levels 12+.
Is bringing back dead characters an issue for people? Considering breathe of life, ultimate mercy, and other options can already do so for no cost I'm curious why this method is offensive. It seems to me that if you dedicate your character to it you can sometimes benefit your allies greatly wouldn't be a negative mark against this option.I think the point is that it cheapens the cost (literally) of death. And yes ultimate mercy exists too, which does kind of cause a false sense of getting rid of free raise deads (...which is why I ban Ultimate Mercy and (now) Razmirian Priest in my home games, along with restricting Blood Money to spells of 1 full round or less, and I don't allow Sensei monks to use Restoration on everyone).
Edit: I do feel for anyone who bought the book and now can't use the spell that probably a large portion of people bought the book to use. Honestly, I'm surprised it wasn't banned *sooner*.
I can understand and respect you wanting to make rezing more expensive for your home game, but PFS doesn't follow that general idea. It already allows abilities that do such things.
|
|
I can understand and respect you wanting to make rezing more expensive for your home game, but PFS doesn't follow that general idea. It already allows abilities that do such things.
I am in agreement with you, which is why I mentioned my home games as an example of *actually* getting rid of the issue rather than "kind of but not really."
|
|
On a 5 day journey where you get ambushed twice blood money has saved you 1250 gp. This plays into the "opportunity cost" argument as well. It makes stoneskin something you keep up all the time instead of only casting it when combat starts or you are almost certain it is about to.
I think you may be unintentionally misrepresenting this opportunity cost. While it's true that you save gold, you tangibly reduce your abilities in exchange. You've now expended a spell slot (and potentially a spell known) and taken STR damage for this trick. One less spell slot that could have been a Snowball to Slow the massive golem, or a Magic Missile to snipe the menacing foe that survived the fighter's full attack before it wreaks havoc on the party, etc. etc. One or more STR damage closer to very unpleasant types of death from creatures that damage/drain STR; or more resources expended to heal the STR damage.
|
|
One reason it may have been removed is that there is a rules debate that has never been resolved about exactly what Dylos is suggesting.
When are the material components of a spell that takes longer than one round to complete (like raise dead) used up?
There is no published answer but there are many reasonable interpretations on how they are spent (as soon as you start casting, incrementally over the course of the spell, or when the spell completes). There were some massive table variations as to the usefulness of blood money depending on how the GM interprets the component consumption.
The straightforward gold savings can actually add up quite a bit, even if you don't talk about multiclassing. Just using stoneskin as an example, there are many scenarios where you have several days travel (sometimes you don't know how many) in front of you. On a 5 day journey where you get ambushed twice blood money has saved you 1250 gp. This plays into the "opportunity cost" argument as well. It makes stoneskin something you keep up all the time instead of only casting it when combat starts or you are almost certain it is about to.
Having said all that it is frustrating for the players who spent $60 solely to cast that one spell. It would have been better to never have it on the legal list but sometimes issues aren't noticed until the options become widespread.
Honestly, that's not a blood money question. It's a spell question. That can matter at any time. Can, say, someone come along and steal the 5000gp gem out of your hand while spending your 1 minute casting raise dead?
That question does still need to be answered regardless of the spell.Also, not even anywhere close to the table variance issues of other feats/abilities in the game.
|
|
On a 5 day journey where you get ambushed twice blood money has saved you 1250 gp. This plays into the "opportunity cost" argument as well. It makes stoneskin something you keep up all the time instead of only casting it when combat starts or you are almost certain it is about to.I think you may be unintentionally misrepresenting this opportunity cost. While it's true that you save gold, you tangibly reduce your abilities in exchange. You've now expended a spell slot (and potentially a spell known) and taken STR damage for this trick. One less spell slot that could have been a Snowball to Slow the massive golem, or a Magic Missile to snipe the menacing foe that survived the fighter's full attack before it wreaks havoc on the party, etc. etc. One or more STR damage closer to very unpleasant types of death from creatures that damage/drain STR; or more resources expended to heal the STR damage.
Exactly. It's not free. It's just convenient for some things. Mostly stoneskin.
|
I think the only reason the spell isn't ubiquitous is the price of the pdf, heh.
Personally, I'm pretty fed up with Ultimate Mercy as well. No, I don't like killing characters, but it trivializes death too much for my tastes. Like with the resonant clear spindle, we might see different types of (semi)permanent status effects like insanity coming into vogue with scenario writers if death's no risk any more.
I too purchased the book only for "blood money".
I also have 2 PCs more or less built around it.
I can't help but feel a little stung having paid the blood money ($) only to have my material component (book) disappear (removed from legality).
Levity aside I am disappointed that my 14 ancient lore keeper oracle and my 16 sorcerer will not be able to do what I built them to do (the lore keeper was specifically built around blood money). I should have just made Razmiran sorcerers but I did not like the flavor.
|
|
I think the only reason the spell isn't ubiquitous is the price of the pdf, heh.
Personally, I'm pretty fed up with Ultimate Mercy as well. No, I don't like killing characters, but it trivializes death too much for my tastes.
If the thought that someone can purchase their way back to life doesn't already trivialize death for you, it seems odd that someone else spending other resources to do the same thing does.
I mean, you might as well just petition the ban of any effect that counters death, like breath of life. Breath of life is already 'free' for anyone who has it on their list.Then again, it is fair to argue that since raise dead takes longer than a round to cast and blood money must be used in the round it is cast that the two spells do not work together. As was brought up earlier in the thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I too purchased the book only for "blood money".
I also have 2 PCs more or less built around it.I can't help but feel a little stung having paid the blood money ($) only to have my material component (book) disappear (removed from legality).
Levity aside I am disappointed that my 14 ancient lore keeper oracle and my 16 sorcerer will not be able to do what I built them to do (the lore keeper was specifically built around blood money). I should have just made Razmiran sorcerers but I did not like the flavor.
It's just how it goes in PFS. Honestly, it's one of the reasons why I don't read a new book till it hits the additional resources(being that I almost exclusively play PFS) just so I don't get my heart set on a build that never becomes legal.
Not that I'm complaining, mind you. You deal with the same issues playing a home game, just in PFS you can't negotiate.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some spells are balanced by having a material component. Some of these are expensive. If you remove the costs then the spell becomes more powerful. giving up 1st level slots is not a problem by the time you get stoneskin et al.
If you are making builds centred around it, you are already taking advantage of the spell, and begging for it to be banned!
Personally I wish it had never been invented - or at least required someone else's blood.
I too purchased the book only for "blood money".
I also have 2 PCs more or less built around it.I can't help but feel a little stung having paid the blood money ($) only to have my material component (book) disappear (removed from legality).
Levity aside I am disappointed that my 14 ancient lore keeper oracle and my 16 sorcerer will not be able to do what I built them to do (the lore keeper was specifically built around blood money). I should have just made Razmiran sorcerers but I did not like the flavor.
It's just how it goes in PFS. Honestly, it's one of the reasons why I don't read a new book till it hits the additional resources(being that I almost exclusively play PFS) just so I don't get my heart set on a build that never becomes legal.
Not that I'm complaining, mind you. You deal with the same issues playing a home game, just in PFS you can't negotiate.
The middle part was written a little in jest, as it mimicked the effects of the spell.
As to your point about waiting for the additional resources, that's usually good advice. Blood Money had been legal for a while though. It's one thing to wait for something to be added, it's another to try to guess what will be removed.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm always boggled by people who buy a book only for a mechanical advantage for a PFS character, when it's something like a single feat or a single spell. I know it happens, I just can't understand the mindset, unless the book is very cheap. How can it be worth the money? I just must not be enough of a hyper-optimizer to understand why one would even want to do this.
I'll buy a book if I'm interested in a character concept, or for story reasons. (E.g., I find "Gnomes of Golarion" more useful for understanding what gnomes are all about than for any mechanical bit in the book.) Or, if it's something that I want to build that's broadly supported (e.g. yes, buy Unchained for the mechanics, because there's lots there and lots are PFS legal).
But I won't go out and buy a book -- specially spending $30 or $60 -- unless I think I will probably actually want to read the book. There's no way I can see it being worth it for a couple of spells, feats, or what-not. This would be true even if it weren't the case that things can later get banned in PFS, making it less of a risk.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are making builds centred around it, you are already taking advantage of the spell, and begging for it to be banned!
*looks at a list of level 1 spells he can build entire characters around off the top of his head* Let's see, in no particular order... Blend, Snowball, Long Arm, Enlarge Person, Obscuring Mist, Moment of Greatness, Shocking Grasp, Color Spray, Silent Image...
That's just the wizard list.
Mild sarcasm intended, but to be clear, there are any number of powerful spells at any given spell level.
The other issue is the ongoing debate on how much STR a caster can burn for this spell. Can he pump up his STR with enhancement spells and/or items and burn those as well?
It's one of those problem spells when it comes to adjudication.
And for most wizards casting a spell giving you temporary str damage is effectively casting it for free, given how much a priority wizards place on that stat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm always boggled by people who buy a book only for a mechanical advantage for a PFS character, when it's something like a single feat or a single spell.
This statement boggled me for a second. Why does it matter why I or anyone else buys a book? I've given my money to Paizo in support of their writing. I just happen to care about the text of some feats and spells in some books more than supplementary material regarding how to comport oneself at ancient Thassilonian dinner parties.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps this would be a candidate to petition for grandfathering? I know that isn't an established goal to strive for with banned options but I think it could be useful in situations like this, where the majority of truly put-out players can live with not including Blood Money going forward but may have a number of extant spellcasters relying on the spell for various purposes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A big part of the spell for me was the flavor. I have always been a fan of Vampire the Masquerade and the idea of a spell caster using their own blood to fuel spells has always been cool to me. Sure a bloat mage can do it, but I usually don't think of my casters as corpulent.
|
|
I guess I'm always boggled by people who buy a book only for a mechanical advantage for a PFS character, when it's something like a single feat or a single spell.This statement boggled me for a second. Why does it matter why I or anyone else buys a book? I've given my money to Paizo in support of their writing. I just happen to care about the text of some feats and spells in some books more than supplementary material regarding how to comport oneself at ancient Thassilonian dinner parties.
It doesn't matter... you are of course free to do whatever you want, and it's all good. You're even free to belittle people interested in the lore with sarcasm. I just don't understand the mindset myself that leads to spending money on a book for that reason.
I've been around long enough to know that lots of people play Pathfinder as basically a very flexible wargame. And it's fine. It's just not my first choice for how I like to approach the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eventually someone will mention Stormwind Fallacy, so I'd figure I'd get that out of the way now.
|
|
It doesn't matter... you are of course free to do whatever you want, and it's all good. You're even free to belittle people interested in the lore with sarcasm.
That's quite rude of you to assume. I am not belittling anyone. If I gave that impression, I apologize. Quite the opposite, I felt that you were acting dismissive of others' equally valid rationales for supporting Paizo's authorship. I can be uninterested in the setting material in one book, and uninterested in the mechanical material for another. It's not a binary proposition (yes, yes, Stormwind Fallacy blah blah).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"...comport oneself at ancient Thassilonian dinner parties" came across as trying to portray those interested in the lore as being ridiculously over-interested in irrelevant minutae.
Re: the whole Stormwind Fallacy thing, I wasn't going there. I never said anything about mechanics getting in the way of roleplaying. I even explicitly indicated a place where I'd buy a book just for the mechanics. All I was saying is that I don't understand the mindset that leads to a substantial monetary outlay for just a couple of spells, or a single feat, or some such, inside a 32-page, 64-page, or even longer book.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the topic at hand... spells that give you free stuff are problematic in Organized Play. Not only are you saving coin, you are saving having to keep some of your wealth by level in gem form instead of in staff of something form.
But I think the big reason is the table variation, since most of those spells take more than a round to cast and so it's possible they can't be used to assist a spell that takes more than a round to cast. Until that is answered, players risk having their builds nullified on a per-table basis. (Although I can't see how someone can build their character around this spell, unlike say color spray or the other examples cited. The spell is strictly a shortcut to save money.)
|
|
I understand that you also buy books for mechanical purposes as well as the opportunity to partake in the lore. Lore can be just as small a component of a book as a mechanical option. In light of this, I felt it unfair for you to dismiss individuals that buy a book solely for specific mechanical options that appeal to them for whatever reason. That's all.
Hmm, but this doesn't "give" you free stuff, GM Lamplighter. You are suffering damage and expending magical energy in exchange for synergy with other expenditures of magical energy. As you say, a shortcut to save money. But why is it wrong to disadvantage myself for the adventuring day as opposed to disadvantaging myself for the adventuring year?
This isn't some sort of infinite-money hack. If I aggressively use Blood Money to save costs, then I might have more money than someone who aggressively spent money on Stoneskin. I don't have any more money than someone who cast Greater Invisibility and Color Spray and survived their brush with that STR-draining ghost in the old well by 1 point.
|
Outside of high level play with simulacrum, wish, ect. level of blood money shenanigans, I have never witnessed it prove a more unbalancing problem than a plethora of other still currently legal options.
Most of the low and mid range level of spells which blood money was frequently used for are otherwise not worth the cost anyhow. Stoneskin? Why. You're a caster. Just buff your AC to 45.
|
|
You're glossing over the, say, four spell slots, a scroll, and devotion to the Living God Razmir necessary to accomplish this feat, andreww. Or perhaps the Shaman Spirit choice, hex choice, and INT/CHA/WIS ability score spread. Or the Oracle archetype, race restriction, and spell level increases... etc. etc.
On a sufficiently optimized chassis at a sufficiently high level you might safely say you could ignore the 'costs' of using Blood Money. But as the poster above says, unless you're doing this at such high enough levels that PFS no longer considers you for most campaign decisions what's the point?
|
|
I agree. I wouldn't give up the level either, but it's hardly the only option. I use Magaambyan Arcanist myself. The point was just that there are ways to do it that are quite easy to achieve.
In further point, using blood money to cast Stoneskin (or insert other general use here), then using blood money to cast lesser restoration is hardly game destroying.
Back to the topic at hand... spells that give you free stuff are problematic in Organized Play. Not only are you saving coin, you are saving having to keep some of your wealth by level in gem form instead of in staff of something form.
But I think the big reason is the table variation, since most of those spells take more than a round to cast and so it's possible they can't be used to assist a spell that takes more than a round to cast. Until that is answered, players risk having their builds nullified on a per-table basis. (Although I can't see how someone can build their character around this spell, unlike say color spray or the other examples cited. The spell is strictly a shortcut to save money.)
The way I did it was to take the ancient lore keeper archetype to be able to select the spell, start with enough strength to be able to pay for a raise dead. With point buy, that strength came at a cost to other ability scores. Choosing your ability scores and archetype based on a spell is in my opinion building based on it.
|
|
You're glossing over the, say, four spell slots, a scroll, and devotion to the Living God Razmir necessary to accomplish this feat, andreww. Or perhaps the Shaman Spirit choice, hex choice, and INT/CHA/WIS ability score spread. Or the Oracle archetype, race restriction, and spell level increases... etc. etc.None of that is necessary. Wands of Blood Money are 2pp and you only need to reach DC20 UMD which gives you extensive additional benefits.
That one is also harder to pull off, since the wand casting is a standard action, typically requiring the follow up spell to be Quickened.
Free Animate Dead is pretty legit, though. Really, free is the only thing that makes the option even worth considering in my mind, but that is just me.
I could support the ban on the spell if there was a grandfathering clause.
