Persistent Spell + Dazing Spell


Rules Questions

51 to 63 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

@Ravingdork, could you please elaborate further, I'm not sure I understand what you mean??


I don't want to speak for him, but the "in general" section of the FAQ was clearly meant to cut off these ridiculous arguments that the more disadvantageous of the two spell levels doesn't apply to everything metamagic.

They created a broad and general rule, with certain examples, for exactly this purpose. A dazing fireball requires a standard metamagic rod of persistent spell to do both because a dazing fireball counts as sixth level when determining which rod type to use; because in this scenario the higher level is disadvantageous.

Arguments that the FAQ means anything else are either willful blindness or intentionally misleading. There are a lot of unclear things in pathfinder; this FAQ isn't one of them.

Liberty's Edge

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
There are a lot of unclear things in pathfinder; this FAQ isn't one of them.

Heck, I still contend that it was clear before the FAQ.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
I don't want to speak for him, but the "in general" section of the FAQ was clearly meant to cut off these ridiculous arguments that the more disadvantageous of the two spell levels doesn't apply to everything metamagic.

That's rather absurdly pejorative. Assuming the FAQ does create a general rule, then it's not 'cutting off ridiculous arguments'; those 'ridiculous arguments' were straight rules text until it came along to 'cut them off'.

On consideration of the language, I could see 'in general' being a very shorthand way of establishing a new rule that overrides previous rules text. It's sticky though, since it's been repeatedly stated that FAQs are only supposed to deal with their stated subject matter, and that extrapolating beyond that isn't the intent. So there's a short phrase in a very specific FAQ - which is generally not supposed to be dealing with things beyond it's stated subject - and it's supposed to be overriding text in the CRB. It shouldn't be that surprising that it's a messy situation.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

BadBird wrote:
repeatedly stated that FAQs are only supposed to deal with their stated subject matter, and that extrapolating beyond that isn't the intent

all of this is complicated by the fact that some humans think one thing is obvious. When confronted with non-obvious to them (but obvious to others) a lot of times we will qualify things.

So when some FAQ were taken to mean things they didn't mean, the general answer is "don't apply any FAQ outside the scope what what they reference."

Then the opposite thing happens, where they make a general FAQ intended to have scope well beyond and others use the "don't take it as a general" thing.

That FAQ happened after conversations about ring of spell storing being used to store metamagic'd spells as the lower level. It was repetitively said that wouldn't work. A few years of that and a thread that blew up then a couple months later we got the FAQ with a specific question that only covered a couple things but had an "in general" comment. I take the events to be related, but I don't have a dev saying they were related.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wise Old Man wrote:
@Ravingdork, could you please elaborate further, I'm not sure I understand what you mean??

I'm positing that the portion of the FAQ quoted below...

In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.

...exists solely and explicitly to intone to the reader that the "FAQs only apply specifically to what they're addressing" rule doesn't apply here.

Does that help your understanding of what I was saying?

If it matters, I personally disagree with the FAQ's ruling, but I also don't think there is any ambiguity in it.

Designer

Ravingdork wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
@Ravingdork, could you please elaborate further, I'm not sure I understand what you mean??

I'm positing that the portion of the FAQ quoted below...

In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.

...exists solely and explicitly to intone to the reader that the "FAQs only apply specifically to what they're addressing" rule doesn't apply here.

Agreed.

While this FAQ was from before my time on the PDT, this seems to be the case here. The "FAQs only have the scope they say they have" statement (which I made) doesn't in any way prevent a FAQ from having a general scope, if that's what it says it has. If the FAQ said "When calculating concentration DCs" instead of "in general", then it would mean it was talking about concentration DCs.

Disclaimer: As mentioned this FAQ was from before my time, so I'm not an expert on it in particular.


Yes, I understand now, thank you for the clarification


I find the "in general" wording to be terribly questionable because we're told at every turn that specific rules trump general rules. Metamagic and rods have specific rules that are perfectly clear. Why would I go look for a more general thing to override that?

And why would I go look at a FAQ for rules that are absolutely unambiguous and raise no questions?


The phrase, "in general" can be specific. In this contest in means in a broad sense you take the more disadvantageous of the levels for metamagic. It was encompassing more than just the examples in the FAQ to avoid exactly this. It was not "general" in the sense that the specific trumps the general. In this case the rules about taking the more disadvantageous of level in metamagic. If a the rod specified that this FAQ didn't apply it; that is a specific that will trump the general.

Different senses of word.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Forseti wrote:
And why would I go look at a FAQ for rules that are absolutely unambiguous and raise no questions?

Well, because since 3.0 has been released the question of what level spell is a maximized magic missile has came up nearly monthly. Now we know, it's level 4 for effects that 4 would be worse for you than 1 and 1 for things that 1 would be worse for you than 4.

When you "get" the design, this is obvious. When you don't this seems bizarre.


The question comes up because people have opinions about how it should work, not because the rules as written are unclear. They unambiguously state that a magic missile is a first level spell.

Liberty's Edge

Forseti wrote:
The question comes up because people have opinions about how it should work, not because the rules as written are unclear. They unambiguously state that a magic missile is a first level spell.

...and that a maximized spell uses up a spell slot three higher than the spell's level.

So, a Maximized Magic Missile remains a 1st level spell for all purposes of its effects, but requires a 4th level spell slot or equivalent (e.g. 4th level Pearl of Power, normal or greater Metamagic Rod) to cast.

51 to 63 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Persistent Spell + Dazing Spell All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.