|
So, when the caster wants to hit someone in a lesser globe with his empowered fireball, it counts as a 5th level spell, but if he doesn't want to hit the person inside, it counts as a 3rd level spell. That's how it works, right?That would be backwards it's 3rd level since penetration of the sphere would be beneficial. The real question is if my friends are in the Globe not a bad guy is it now a 5th level spell since hitting them is the more detrimental choice?
I would have it go off what is advantageous/disadvantageous to the spell itself, rather than the recipients. It wants to get the through the globe, do it would fail, regardless of whether the people behind he globe want it or not.
There is absolutely no point in arguing with someone as belligerent and moronic as you who claims that a FaQ isn't a rule.
You hate the FaQ, we get it. Doesn't make it not exist.
Rysky, please be civil. Though I expect this thread will be locked soon, and this, and the quoted post, and a few more deleted now.
I would have it go off what is advantageous/disadvantageous to the spell itself, rather than the recipients. It wants to get the through the globe, do it would fail, regardless of whether the people behind he globe want it or not.So, when the caster wants to hit someone in a lesser globe with his empowered fireball, it counts as a 5th level spell, but if he doesn't want to hit the person inside, it counts as a 3rd level spell. That's how it works, right?That would be backwards it's 3rd level since penetration of the sphere would be beneficial. The real question is if my friends are in the Globe not a bad guy is it now a 5th level spell since hitting them is the more detrimental choice?
No, no, no.
The FAQ tells you to consider the caster's disadvantage. That's the litmus test for deciding the level you use. It's the general way you should decide these things. It's in black and white, how dare you not accept it.
I would have it go off what is advantageous/disadvantageous to the spell itself, rather than the recipients. It wants to get the through the globe, do it would fail, regardless of whether the people behind he globe want it or not.So, when the caster wants to hit someone in a lesser globe with his empowered fireball, it counts as a 5th level spell, but if he doesn't want to hit the person inside, it counts as a 3rd level spell. That's how it works, right?That would be backwards it's 3rd level since penetration of the sphere would be beneficial. The real question is if my friends are in the Globe not a bad guy is it now a 5th level spell since hitting them is the more detrimental choice?
Which is how I would rule it's just some people seem so hung up on the "what ever is most disadvantageous" line that I wonder if they would.
EDIT:
No, no, no.The FAQ tells you to consider the caster's disadvantage. That's the litmus test for deciding the level you use. It's the general way you should decide these things. It's in black and white, how dare you not accept it.
See
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a lesser and a greater rod. I try to use the lesser one for empowering my quickened fireball. Does it work? No. It would be a level 7 spell since that is most disadvantageous to me.
Now I try my greater rod instead. Does that work? No. Since the greater rod can't handle a level 3 spell, that is more disadvantageous to me.
|
|
I have a lesser and a greater rod. I try to use the lesser one for empowering my quickened fireball. Does it work? No. It would be a level 7 spell since that is most disadvantageous to me.
Now I try my greater rod instead. Does that work? No. Since the greater rod can't handle a level 3 spell, that is more disadvantageous to me.
THIS! This is the exact issue with having the level of the spell be solvent!
Well, the greater rod would work.
The FAQ tells you to consider the caster's disadvantage. That's the litmus test for deciding the level you use. It's the general way you should decide these things. It's in black and white, how dare you not accept it.
Its always possible to break the rules if you push the most extreme edge cases and insist on the most rigid reading of the rules as possible. Read for intent, not legalistically. I could break just about any rule in the game by finding a extreme edge case.
Now I try my greater rod instead. Does that work? No. Since the greater rod can't handle a level 3 spell, that is more disadvantageous to me.
PRD says otherwise.
Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower.
|
|
Its always possible to break the rules if you push the most extreme edge cases and insist on the most rigid reading of the rules as possible. Read for intent, not legalistically. I could break just about any rule in the game by finding a extreme edge case.The FAQ tells you to consider the caster's disadvantage. That's the litmus test for deciding the level you use. It's the general way you should decide these things. It's in black and white, how dare you not accept it.
Ah but that's not legal for PFS and RAW.
Hmmm, no. Let's see what the FAQ tells us (again):
In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster.
So, since it would be a disadvantage to me, the caster, in this instance, to have it as a level 3 spell, meaning the rod couldn't work then, it is a level 3 spell, the (normal, lower) spell level.
To be a bit less obtuse: The problem here is that "In general, use whatever is more of a disadvantage for the caster" is lousy rules language, since it doesn't in any way convey what situations the rule covers.
Ah but that's not legal for PFS and RAW.Its always possible to break the rules if you push the most extreme edge cases and insist on the most rigid reading of the rules as possible. Read for intent, not legalistically. I could break just about any rule in the game by finding a extreme edge case.The FAQ tells you to consider the caster's disadvantage. That's the litmus test for deciding the level you use. It's the general way you should decide these things. It's in black and white, how dare you not accept it.
I have learned that my initial impression of PFS rulings is not as strict and tight as I had once thought. I think you would find PFS GM's making reasonable rulings for edge cases, and not being tied by legalistic language (YMMV though).
As to RAW and outside of PFS, I really don't care about RAW, RAI is far more useful and instructive (even though I realize not everyone will agree on RAI - heck, we don't even agree on RAW many times).
Its always possible to break the rules if you push the most extreme edge cases and insist on the most rigid reading of the rules as possible. Read for intent, not legalistically. I could break just about any rule in the game by finding a extreme edge case.The FAQ tells you to consider the caster's disadvantage. That's the litmus test for deciding the level you use. It's the general way you should decide these things. It's in black and white, how dare you not accept it.
It isn't an extreme edge case. Both spells are commonly used in games I'm in and they interact too.
The problem isn't this particular case, the problem is the attempt to capture a complex issue in a single quotable sentence that has no nuance to it at all.
And people want to subject the perfectly clear and unambiguous rules for metamagic and rods to this? Rules that raise no question to begin with?
|
|
I have learned that my initial impression of PFS rulings is not as strict and tight as I had once thought. As to RAW and outside of PFS, I really don't care about RAW, RAI is far more useful and instructive (even though I realize not everyone will agree on RAI - heck, we don't even agree on RAW many times).Ah but that's not legal for PFS and RAW.Its always possible to break the rules if you push the most extreme edge cases and insist on the most rigid reading of the rules as possible. Read for intent, not legalistically. I could break just about any rule in the game by finding a extreme edge case.The FAQ tells you to consider the caster's disadvantage. That's the litmus test for deciding the level you use. It's the general way you should decide these things. It's in black and white, how dare you not accept it.
Oh trust me I agree! I was just pointing out that since this question has impact on PFS builds then it does need to be looked at from that side as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a lesser and a greater rod. I try to use the lesser one for empowering my quickened fireball. Does it work? No. It would be a level 7 spell since that is most disadvantageous to me.
Now I try my greater rod instead. Does that work? No. Since the greater rod can't handle a level 3 spell, that is more disadvantageous to me.
Now, see, I was interpreting "least advantageous to the caster" as requiring the use of the more expensive rod to empower the quickened fireball rather than assuming the intent of the rule was to be outright broken.
Going in assuming that the game is supposed to work rather than assuming the most pedantic interpretation of the rule text is right seems to work a lot better for me. Maybe you should try it.
It isn't an extreme edge case. Both spells are commonly used in games I'm in and they interact too.
The problem isn't this particular case, the problem is the attempt to capture a complex issue in a single quotable sentence that has no nuance to it at all.
How often do combatants on both sides have a globe up, are in the area of effect of the fireball, and the fireball caster has it metamagic'd? It really is an edge case. Even if your own anecdotal experience is different.
Now I try my greater rod instead. Does that work? No. Since the greater rod can't handle a level 3 spell, that is more disadvantageous to me.PRD says otherwise.
Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower.
...really? THAT is your argument? *chuckles*
Try this then:
I have two pearls of power, level 3 and 7. I have just cast a quickened fireball. I try to get it back with the level 7 pearl. Level 3 would be to my disadvantage, so it fails.
Next round I cast another quickened fireball, and try the level 3 pearl. That too fails, because it is to my disadvantage that the spell is level 7.
Sorry Sissyl, now your simply being pedantic.
I have a lesser and a greater rod. I try to use the lesser one for empowering my quickened fireball. Does it work? No. It would be a level 7 spell since that is most disadvantageous to me.
Now I try my greater rod instead. Does that work? No. Since the greater rod can't handle a level 3 spell, that is more disadvantageous to me.
Now, see, I was interpreting "least advantageous to the caster" as requiring the use of the more expensive rod to empower the quickened fireball rather than assuming the intent of the rule was to be outright broken.
Going in assuming that the game is supposed to work rather than assuming the most pedantic interpretation of the rule text is right seems to work a lot better for me. Maybe you should try it.
Absolutely. I am all for that. But hey, could you then convince this bunch of people to agree on where the limits are for "disadvantageous for the caster"? There doesn't seem to be any sort of limit to it as it stands, at least if you listen to what the people who like the FAQ say.
Sorry Sissyl, now your simply being pedantic.
That's a consequence of that FAQ. Are people ready to agree with me that it's terrible?
Sorry Sissyl, now your simply being pedantic.
Since you are so convinced, why don't you humour me and give me an argument for why what I say is wrong instead of avoiding the issue? Besides, your lucky save that a greater rod can handle a level 3 spell above makes me not alone in being pedantic here.
How often do combatants on both sides have a globe up, are in the area of effect of the fireball, and the fireball caster has it metamagic'd? It really is an edge case. Even if your own anecdotal experience is different.It isn't an extreme edge case. Both spells are commonly used in games I'm in and they interact too.
The problem isn't this particular case, the problem is the attempt to capture a complex issue in a single quotable sentence that has no nuance to it at all.
Let me widen the scope for you then.
Lesser Globe of Invulnerability is a spell that's intended to interact with spells of a certain level. If you have a globe in play, it's entirely to be expected that it will at some point come into conflict with a spell in the 1-3 range. I wouldn't look upon the scenario so far as an edge case.
The only thing missing at this point, is a metamagic feat that would lift the spell out of that 1-3 range. This still does not make it an edge case by my reckoning. Let alone an extreme edge case.
Sorry Sissyl, now your simply being pedantic.That's a consequence of that FAQ. Are people ready to agree with me that it's terrible?
Sissyl being pedantic is a consequence of the FAQ? :)
Forseti, Gabriel, and Sissyl:
On this train of thought, Bill Dunn already answered it above in his post. If your reading of something makes the game not function at all, you are getting the wrong meaning. I won't discuss this meaningless line of thought further - there is nothing to be humored here Sissyl.
Absolutely. I am all for that. But hey, could you then convince this bunch of people to agree on where the limits are for "disadvantageous for the caster"? There doesn't seem to be any sort of limit to it as it stands, at least if you listen to what the people who like the FAQ say.I have a lesser and a greater rod. I try to use the lesser one for empowering my quickened fireball. Does it work? No. It would be a level 7 spell since that is most disadvantageous to me.
Now I try my greater rod instead. Does that work? No. Since the greater rod can't handle a level 3 spell, that is more disadvantageous to me.
Now, see, I was interpreting "least advantageous to the caster" as requiring the use of the more expensive rod to empower the quickened fireball rather than assuming the intent of the rule was to be outright broken.
Going in assuming that the game is supposed to work rather than assuming the most pedantic interpretation of the rule text is right seems to work a lot better for me. Maybe you should try it.
I don't know about you, but avoiding redundant and reductive judgments seems to be a pretty good common sense limit to me. Looking at the quickened fireball issue and the lesser and greater metamagic rods, it seems appropriate to judge the level of the spell for further metamagic applications once and once only. You judge it to be 7th level due to the quickening (being less advantageous to a caster, in general) so the lesser rod can't apply, but the greater one does. Making a second judgment now on the suitability of the greater rod is like getting into an argument with Vizzini - written for comedy, not a model for decision-making.
Let me widen the scope for you then.Lesser Globe of Invulnerability is a spell that's intended to interact with spells of a certain level. If you have a globe in play, it's entirely to be expected that it will at some point come into conflict with a spell in the 1-3 range. I wouldn't look upon the scenario so far as an edge case.
I'm with you so far.
The only thing missing at this point, is a metamagic feat that would lift the spell out of that 1-3 range. This still does not make it an edge case by my reckoning. Let alone an extreme edge case.
Also with you.
Maybe I've misunderstood your scenario. Let me recap and you correct me if I'm wrong.
You have an enemy with globe up. You have an ally with globe up. Both are within 40' of each other. You have a caster with fireball metamagic'd, and he places the fireball such that it overlaps both the enemy and his ally? Is that correct?
Sorry Sissyl, now your simply being pedantic.That's a consequence of that FAQ. Are people ready to agree with me that it's terrible?Sissyl being pedantic is a consequence of the FAQ? :)
Forseti, Gabriel, and Sissly:
On this train of thought, Bill Dunn already answered it above in his post. If your reading of something makes the game not function at all, you are getting the wrong meaning. I won't discuss this meaningless line of thought further - there is nothing to be humored here Sissyl.
But you do want me to refer to a FAQ for rules that no straightforward reading could find fault with? Doesn't that seem even more backword and contrary? Looking for an answer to a non-existing question?
Bill: I believe Chemlak said it best:
There's a reason people think that, and it's because there's a paragraph of the FAQ which begins "In general...", which PDT use to describe the general case that should be used for rules interactions, including those not specifically covered by the FAQ.
So the fact that the question is about concentration, pearls of power, and magus recall doesn't matter, because they give us a general rule to apply in all other situations where "what level applies?" comes up. Such as this thread.
As I interpret him, this is about EVERY SINGLE RULES INTERACTION regarding every kind of metamagic. It. Is. ALWAYS. To. The. Caster's. Disadvantage.
But you do want me to refer to a FAQ for rules that no straightforward reading could find fault with? Doesn't that seem even more backword and contrary? Looking for an answer to a non-existing question?Sorry Sissyl, now your simply being pedantic.That's a consequence of that FAQ. Are people ready to agree with me that it's terrible?Sissyl being pedantic is a consequence of the FAQ? :)
Forseti, Gabriel, and Sissly:
On this train of thought, Bill Dunn already answered it above in his post. If your reading of something makes the game not function at all, you are getting the wrong meaning. I won't discuss this meaningless line of thought further - there is nothing to be humored here Sissyl.
We already discussed this in the host of deleted posts from yesterday. Why do spontaneous casters get an unlisted benefit prepared casters don't? You read it in the most literal way possible. I'm reading to try and understand the system working fluidly as a whole where every duck is a duck until we are told it is not.
EDIT: I'm taking the rules on metamagic, the rules on casters in general and how similar they generally are. The FAQ on metamagic. The discussions I was involved in related to metamagic when the FAQ came out and the questions and thoughts that came out of that. From that I'm deriving an answer.
Let me widen the scope for you then.Lesser Globe of Invulnerability is a spell that's intended to interact with spells of a certain level. If you have a globe in play, it's entirely to be expected that it will at some point come into conflict with a spell in the 1-3 range. I wouldn't look upon the scenario so far as an edge case.
I'm with you so far.
The only thing missing at this point, is a metamagic feat that would lift the spell out of that 1-3 range. This still does not make it an edge case by my reckoning. Let alone an extreme edge case.Also with you.
Maybe I've misunderstood your scenario. Let me recap and you correct me if I'm wrong.
You have an enemy with globe up. You have an ally with globe up. Both are within 40' of each other. You have a caster with fireball metamagic'd, and he places the fireball such that it overlaps both the enemy and his ally? Is that correct?
It's far simpler than that. The battlefield has a single globe. It doesn't matter who cast it, the caster might not even be in it, or still alive at all. The globe is a stationary effect, and combatants on both sides have been going in and out of it for a few rounds. Just who and who isn't in the globe is a variable thing round to round.
