paizo.com Recent Posts in Why do certain spells still exist?paizo.com Recent Posts in Why do certain spells still exist?2017-06-05T17:49:50Z2017-06-05T17:49:50ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?Senko (alias of Liam Warner)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3192017-07-23T23:18:04Z2017-07-23T23:11:27Z<p>I have to say I am against banning/nerfing/altering any option just because one small group doesn't like it because that ruins the fun for other small groups who do like it. I feel it should be an all or nothing approach. As in "EVERYONE agrees this is a must have option" then its probably too powerful/useful and should be looked again to see if it needs to raised in level or just made a default part of everyone's gear unless its thematic like the old ring of sustenance.</p>
<p>The simple fact is gaming groups in my admitedly somewhat limited experience run the gamut from people like me who will spend points on fun/thematic choices even if doing so actually makes our character weaker to play through to people who play minmax the barbarian style and trade away their ability to rhyme on purpose for an extra +1 to hit. Its why we have game masters to know their player base and handle their group accordingly. Take the old gestalt class in 3rd ed you can give it to me no problem because I'd use it to take a monk or maybe a rogue and even then I'd use those as a secondary primarily working as a wizard and leaving the fighting/thieving to the person who's role that is. On the other hand I've known players who'd use the gestalt class to gleefully take options boosting their magical potential so they could cast 9th level spells by level 14. As a gm I know that player and I know there is no way I'd let anyone play gestalt classes in a game he was in because I couldn't exclude only him and he'd abuse the living hell out of it.</p>
<p>Similarly take blood money I didn't know about it before this thread but now I do I'd love to have it to increase my no component options but at the same time I wouldn't be bothering with the weird (and to me rahter rules doubtful) enervation trick I'd just use it occasionally for bigger spells, mostly out of combat too.</p>
<p>That's the point here a GM is there to tell a story, encourage players to work together in exploring their world and occasional hit them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and tell them bad player. If your group is the kind who can't sit down beforehand and work out a few agreements that will make everyone happy (I can get my teleport spell but I'll only use it in certain circumstances so we can experience our ship adventuring) or are the kind of group who isn't trying to minmax and eke out every little point of damage they can then its up to you to implement a few rules to ensure that things wont get out of hand. It can be as simple as saying like I do that free abilities/spells on level up are only the common ones e.g. those in the core book or ones you've specifically run up against a reason to develop on at least 2 occasions. Anything out of those books you need to find/roleplay your developing of and I need to approve it beforehand. Then they say "I want X" I can look it up myself and decide if its going to ruin things if I say no they can't have it, if I say yes next level up they can take it.</p>
<p>Also on a purely personal level I love playing wizards for the sheer magical nature of them making solid objects clear as glass, turning annoying people into chihauhas (temporarily), soaring through the sky, reflavouring a healthy salad into chocolate tasting salad, creating my own small pocket dimension. It seems at times people want to hammer all that away and leave me with a "balanced" character where I may as well be playing a fighter with options or a low helath, dps dealer which is simply not fun for me. Because of all my mage can do is deal out huge amounts of damage then really what's the point in playing them.</p>
<p>EDIT
<br />
As for power levels I recall one system that divided all its spells up into 3 categories common, rare and exotic. Common ones anyone could take on levelling up as they were pretty much everywhere, rare ones were more expensive and required you to aquire it in game (or something may have just been more expensive) and exotic were one of a kind spells that only one person knew so if you wanted them you had to either research a version yourself or seek out the developer and convince them to teach it to you usually involving a quest and favours rahter than simply money. Maybe something like that classify all feats/spells into 3 categories? The ones you can just take on levelling up, the ones you need to find as treasure or pay a lot of money for and the ones you can only aquire from one source by doing favours/killing them?</p>I have to say I am against banning/nerfing/altering any option just because one small group doesn't like it because that ruins the fun for other small groups who do like it. I feel it should be an all or nothing approach. As in "EVERYONE agrees this is a must have option" then its probably too powerful/useful and should be looked again to see if it needs to raised in level or just made a default part of everyone's gear unless its thematic like the old ring of sustenance.
The simple fact is...Senko (alias of Liam Warner)2017-07-23T23:11:27ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?Ed Repperthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3182017-06-15T21:29:44Z2017-06-15T21:29:44Z<p>I kind of liked the way Harnmaster did spells originally. When you become a mage (no classes in this game, but the pre-game has you as an apprentice to a master mage, usually at a chantry somewhere) you are sent out into the world to learn what you can. You might have a few low level spells, and you know how to conduct spell research. You are expected to return to your chantry no sooner than a year and a day later, demonstrate knowledge of three new spells that you've invented, and provide three useful items to the chantry. If you do that, you are promoted to, essentially, journeyman. To get promoted to master, a master has to be impressed enough with you to circulate a petition amongst the masters suggesting that you be invited to join their ranks. At least three masters have to sign it.</p>
<p>I ramble; the point was that originally there were very few published spells. Players complained, so now there are more - 192 in "The Tome of The Shek-P'var" last time I counted. Still, players are expected to invent new spells in the course of the game. Most mages, btw, don't give away knowledge easily, whether it be spells or other knowledge. IAC, Pathfinder has, to my mind, a mind-boggling array of pre-defined spells. And I suspect few players expect, or are expected, to develop new spells.</p>I kind of liked the way Harnmaster did spells originally. When you become a mage (no classes in this game, but the pre-game has you as an apprentice to a master mage, usually at a chantry somewhere) you are sent out into the world to learn what you can. You might have a few low level spells, and you know how to conduct spell research. You are expected to return to your chantry no sooner than a year and a day later, demonstrate knowledge of three new spells that you've invented, and provide...Ed Reppert2017-06-15T21:29:44ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?Furdinandhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3172017-06-15T20:28:50Z2017-06-15T20:28:50Z<p>Some of those spells are just legacy from 3rd Ed and earlier. I don't know if it is pressure from long time players or nostalgia of the designers, but some elements carry over from edition to edition regardless of whether they make sense in the new system. Paladin alignment is a good example. 2nd ed: More mechanically powerful than fighters but also more restricted in role-playing. Pathfinder: Mechanically roughly balanced with fighter, still stuck with role-playing restrictions.</p>Some of those spells are just legacy from 3rd Ed and earlier. I don't know if it is pressure from long time players or nostalgia of the designers, but some elements carry over from edition to edition regardless of whether they make sense in the new system. Paladin alignment is a good example. 2nd ed: More mechanically powerful than fighters but also more restricted in role-playing. Pathfinder: Mechanically roughly balanced with fighter, still stuck with role-playing restrictions.Furdinand2017-06-15T20:28:50ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?TOZ (alias of TriOmegaZero)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3162017-08-05T15:27:18Z2017-06-15T20:04:57Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">icehawk333 wrote:</div><blockquote> Why do certain spells still exist?</blockquote><p>To make you ask questions.icehawk333 wrote:Why do certain spells still exist?
To make you ask questions.TOZ (alias of TriOmegaZero)2017-06-15T20:04:57ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?Blackwaltzomegahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3152017-06-15T19:48:08Z2017-06-15T19:48:08Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Isonaroc wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Loengrin wrote:</div><blockquote><p> lol sorry , I was just assuming everyone knows the real life lore behind simulacrum... It's something that comes from northern europe folklore... They are made from snow, are strong as hell, looks like the original but fresh water make them melt... Well with a spell using so much of the lore I'm just wondering why they put out this part of the lore since with this weakness the spell could be a lot less powerful...
</p>
Though that would mean a lot of people would get wet in adventures... :D </p>
<p>Blood Money : Oh I haven't seen the Swift action from the spell... Okay it's too powerful as a swift... a 1 action spell and it's good... Ok, go on Paizo, I already gave you the answers... :p</p>
<p>Well my players would never use those kind of things to abuse the game since they know that when they try to abuse I just do the same and with creatures far more powerful then them :D </blockquote><p>Mmm...pretty sure simulacra are not folklore, leastwise not the D&D/PF version and not by that name. You may be thinking of the Snegurochka, which is Russian, not European, was not strong, and always was a little girl (also its roots in folklore are dubious at best).
<p>As for blood money, I always thought the big strategy was to magic jar something like a whale and use that body for the burn. </blockquote><p>Yeah, for the less scrupulous caster, you can keep an anthropomorphic whale in a pocket dimension, use Magic Jar or Possession (preferably Greater Possession) to possess it and baddabing, baddaboom, you can pay for wishes with the blood of a strange, miserable whale-creature instead of diamonds.Isonaroc wrote:Loengrin wrote:lol sorry , I was just assuming everyone knows the real life lore behind simulacrum... It's something that comes from northern europe folklore... They are made from snow, are strong as hell, looks like the original but fresh water make them melt... Well with a spell using so much of the lore I'm just wondering why they put out this part of the lore since with this weakness the spell could be a lot less powerful...
Though that would mean a lot of people would get...Blackwaltzomega2017-06-15T19:48:08ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?Isonarochttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3142017-06-15T10:46:11Z2017-06-15T10:46:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Loengrin wrote:</div><blockquote><p> lol sorry , I was just assuming everyone knows the real life lore behind simulacrum... It's something that comes from northern europe folklore... They are made from snow, are strong as hell, looks like the original but fresh water make them melt... Well with a spell using so much of the lore I'm just wondering why they put out this part of the lore since with this weakness the spell could be a lot less powerful...
</p>
Though that would mean a lot of people would get wet in adventures... :D </p>
<p>Blood Money : Oh I haven't seen the Swift action from the spell... Okay it's too powerful as a swift... a 1 action spell and it's good... Ok, go on Paizo, I already gave you the answers... :p</p>
<p>Well my players would never use those kind of things to abuse the game since they know that when they try to abuse I just do the same and with creatures far more powerful then them :D </blockquote><p>Mmm...pretty sure simulacra are not folklore, leastwise not the D&D/PF version and not by that name. You may be thinking of the Snegurochka, which is Russian, not European, was not strong, and always was a little girl (also its roots in folklore are dubious at best).
<p>As for blood money, I always thought the big strategy was to magic jar something like a whale and use that body for the burn.</p>Loengrin wrote:lol sorry , I was just assuming everyone knows the real life lore behind simulacrum... It's something that comes from northern europe folklore... They are made from snow, are strong as hell, looks like the original but fresh water make them melt... Well with a spell using so much of the lore I'm just wondering why they put out this part of the lore since with this weakness the spell could be a lot less powerful...
Though that would mean a lot of people would get wet in...Isonaroc2017-06-15T10:46:11ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?Loengrinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3132017-06-15T04:25:00Z2017-06-15T04:25:00Z<p>lol sorry , I was just assuming everyone knows the real life lore behind simulacrum... It's something that comes from northern europe folklore... They are made from snow, are strong as hell, looks like the original but fresh water make them melt... Well with a spell using so much of the lore I'm just wondering why they put out this part of the lore since with this weakness the spell could be a lot less powerful...
<br />
Though that would mean a lot of people would get wet in adventures... :D </p>
<p>Blood Money : Oh I haven't seen the Swift action from the spell... Okay it's too powerful as a swift... a 1 action spell and it's good... Ok, go on Paizo, I already gave you the answers... :p</p>
<p>Well my players would never use those kind of things to abuse the game since they know that when they try to abuse I just do the same and with creatures far more powerful then them :D</p>lol sorry , I was just assuming everyone knows the real life lore behind simulacrum... It's something that comes from northern europe folklore... They are made from snow, are strong as hell, looks like the original but fresh water make them melt... Well with a spell using so much of the lore I'm just wondering why they put out this part of the lore since with this weakness the spell could be a lot less powerful...
Though that would mean a lot of people would get wet in adventures... :D
Blood...Loengrin2017-06-15T04:25:00ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?Ravingdorkhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3122017-06-15T02:34:01Z2017-06-15T02:34:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Loengrin wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I've read Simulacrum and it's sooo much stangely phrased... Can you or can you not make "Random Monster B" or do you have to make someone specific ?
</p>
It's an illusion so I think "Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)" rules apply in case of interaction no ?
<br />
And where's the part where putting fresh water on it dispells it ? Simulacrum in the lore are really powerful but got this simple weak point ;) </blockquote><p>Sims possess all the durability and vulnerabilities as the real deal (well, with half HD anyways). Therefore, if water didn't hurt the original, it won't do anything to the sim.
<p>You don't know the half of it when it comes to weird sim antics. I've heard of people doing things like making sims of the king's trapmaker, then asking it for detailed information on all the traps he ever built to guard the king's treasury.</p>
<p>Or heck, make a sim of the king and have him let you in himself.</p>Loengrin wrote:I've read Simulacrum and it's sooo much stangely phrased... Can you or can you not make "Random Monster B" or do you have to make someone specific ?
It's an illusion so I think "Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)" rules apply in case of interaction no ?
And where's the part where putting fresh water on it dispells it ? Simulacrum in the lore are really powerful but got this simple weak point ;)
Sims possess all the durability and vulnerabilities as the real deal (well,...Ravingdork2017-06-15T02:34:01ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?Paradozenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3112017-06-15T02:06:08Z2017-06-15T02:06:08Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Loengrin wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Mmmh.. Can someone tell me whzat is the issue with Blood Money ?
</p>
There's not many ways to cast a spell in the same round you cast Blood Money, it means Quicken Spell and a 1 round spellcasting spell...
<br />
And it cost you 1d6 hp damage, which I would rule would be taken directly in the Wound (We use Wound and Vigor) and Strength Damage...
<br />
In adventure it can be convenient but not overpowered... :)</p>
<p>Is the issue with Item Creation ? :)</p>
<p>I've read Simulacrum and it's sooo much stangely phrased... Can you or can you not make "Random Monster B" or do you have to make someone specific ?
<br />
It's an illusion so I think "Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)" rules apply in case of interaction no ?
<br />
And where's the part where putting fresh water on it dispells it ? Simulacrum in the lore are really powerful but got this simple weak point ;) </blockquote><p>Blood Money: Its already a swift action spell, and not everyone uses Wound and Vigor optional rules. Other than that, I haven't seen it be a problem but if a caster buffed their strength enough it can be abused for incredibly expensive spells for free. I seem to recall a series of buffs to get strength from 9 to 52 for a few rounds, allowing a wizard to cast wish for free and be healed by an allied cleric the next round. That's extreme, though it also could throw a wrench into the GM's plans if he makes raising the dead (necromancy or coming back to life) intentionally difficult and the caster can ignore that effect. Otherwise, I guess the issue is it can inflate caster wealth over noncaster wealth more than the norm? Hasn't been an issue when I've seem it though.
<p>Simulacrum: Not all illusions give the save for disbelief. The ones that do specify that they offer saves and simulacrum specifies that it does not. Also, the spell says nothing about fresh water on the prd, so that might be a house rule/older edition rule. As for what you can create, the vague nature of the spell implies that it could create generic copies (or it would state otherwise) but some GMs rule otherwise. This spell can be used to break action economy (wizard makes a self-copy to cast spells without relevant saves, or another caster with the same idea) or regular economy (an Efreeti with 1/2 HD still has wish as a spell like ability). In my home games (with player consent) we rule that simuacrum is a "plot spell" which npcs can use but player characters cannot. None of my players want to deal with the headache of managing mini-mes in combat, or using it for out of combat subterfuge, so they are OK with it.</p>Loengrin wrote:Mmmh.. Can someone tell me whzat is the issue with Blood Money ?
There's not many ways to cast a spell in the same round you cast Blood Money, it means Quicken Spell and a 1 round spellcasting spell...
And it cost you 1d6 hp damage, which I would rule would be taken directly in the Wound (We use Wound and Vigor) and Strength Damage...
In adventure it can be convenient but not overpowered... :)Is the issue with Item Creation ? :)
I've read Simulacrum and it's sooo much...Paradozen2017-06-15T02:06:08ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?Loengrinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3102017-06-15T01:40:21Z2017-06-15T01:40:21Z<p>Mmmh.. Can someone tell me whzat is the issue with Blood Money ?
<br />
There's not many ways to cast a spell in the same round you cast Blood Money, it means Quicken Spell and a 1 round spellcasting spell...
<br />
And it cost you 1d6 hp damage, which I would rule would be taken directly in the Wound (We use Wound and Vigor) and Strength Damage...
<br />
In adventure it can be convenient but not overpowered... :)</p>
<p>Is the issue with Item Creation ? :)</p>
<p>I've read Simulacrum and it's sooo much stangely phrased... Can you or can you not make "Random Monster B" or do you have to make someone specific ?
<br />
It's an illusion so I think "Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)" rules apply in case of interaction no ?
<br />
And where's the part where putting fresh water on it dispells it ? Simulacrum in the lore are really powerful but got this simple weak point ;)</p>Mmmh.. Can someone tell me whzat is the issue with Blood Money ?
There's not many ways to cast a spell in the same round you cast Blood Money, it means Quicken Spell and a 1 round spellcasting spell...
And it cost you 1d6 hp damage, which I would rule would be taken directly in the Wound (We use Wound and Vigor) and Strength Damage...
In adventure it can be convenient but not overpowered... :)
Is the issue with Item Creation ? :)
I've read Simulacrum and it's sooo much stangely phrased......Loengrin2017-06-15T01:40:21ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3092017-06-13T21:59:53Z2017-06-13T21:59:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote>I feel like at the very least, the "a Wizard adds 2 spells" should be limited by "spells the Wizard is at least vaguely aware of."</blockquote><p>Well, if a spell is actually noted as being rare or of limited access then it would make sense that it has limited access.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote>If some legendary Wizard of 20th level doing research in their tower invents a brand new level 1 spell, I don't think every wizard who levels from 1st to 2nd within 1 minute of that spell's creation being finished should have access to that spell.</blockquote><p>A spell noted as unique shouldn't be able to be picked by mundane ways, like a spell library, but a sorcerer might wake up one day and have it.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote>If some wizard on Triaxus invents a new spell, or Baba Yaga invents a new spell when she's hanging out on in her hut when it's on Earth, I don't think every Wizard on Golarion would be able to immediately know about that spell existing and be able to select it on their next level up.</blockquote><p>Again, if a spell is noted as being limited to an area or person that's one thing: wizards are out of luck. Once it's in existence, nothing stops a sorcerer from picking it up.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote>The "adds two spells" clause to me is clearly intended limited to "spells the character in question has some reason to know about". Which may exclude Blood Money, because that character likely ought to be unaware of it unless they are some scholar of ancient Thassilon. If all Wizards are constantly aware of all spells that anybody, anywhere, in any time has created that precludes the possibility of knowledge lost to the ages, keeping something you invented secret, and regional variations on things; all of which are bad things to lose IMO. </blockquote><p>"Scions of innately magical bloodlines, the chosen of deities, the spawn of monsters, pawns of fate and destiny, or simply flukes of fickle magic" Sorcerers break the "has some reason to know about" mold. They just have their magic dropped on them unless they do spell research. All it takes is a single sorcerer to gain it and teach it/make a scroll of it and now that unknown spells gets into circulation. There is no real way to keep spells 'secret'.PossibleCabbage wrote:I feel like at the very least, the "a Wizard adds 2 spells" should be limited by "spells the Wizard is at least vaguely aware of."
Well, if a spell is actually noted as being rare or of limited access then it would make sense that it has limited access. PossibleCabbage wrote:If some legendary Wizard of 20th level doing research in their tower invents a brand new level 1 spell, I don't think every wizard who levels from 1st to 2nd within 1 minute of that spell's creation...graystone2017-06-13T21:59:53ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?Firewarrior44https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3082017-06-13T21:21:22Z2017-06-13T21:21:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ravingdork wrote:</div><blockquote> Can you link to that blog please? </blockquote><p><a href="http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lc7e" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">link</a>Ravingdork wrote:Can you link to that blog please?
linkFirewarrior442017-06-13T21:21:22ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?PossibleCabbagehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3072017-06-15T10:39:47Z2017-06-13T20:51:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DrDeth wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">HWalsh wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Blood Money is a legendary spell. There is one copy in existence. It was never intended for players to get.</blockquote><p>It exists. ". At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. " Thereby any Wizard can add it.
<p>If Paizo intended for it to be hard to get, they should have said something. </blockquote><p>I feel like at the very least, the "a Wizard adds 2 spells" should be limited by "spells the Wizard is at least vaguely aware of."
<p>If some legendary Wizard of 20th level doing research in their tower invents a brand new level 1 spell, I don't think every wizard who levels from 1st to 2nd within 1 minute of that spell's creation being finished should have access to that spell.</p>
<p>If some wizard on Triaxus invents a new spell, or Baba Yaga invents a new spell when she's hanging out on in her hut when it's on Earth, I don't think every Wizard on Golarion would be able to immediately know about that spell existing and be able to select it on their next level up.</p>
<p>The "adds two spells" clause to me is clearly intended limited to "spells the character in question has some reason to know about". Which may exclude Blood Money, because that character likely ought to be unaware of it unless they are some scholar of ancient Thassilon (if the GM wants to make the call that RotRL happened and now everybody knows about it, that's their prerogative, but not the default.) If all Wizards are constantly aware of all spells that anybody, anywhere, in any time has created that precludes the possibility of knowledge lost to the ages, keeping something you invented secret, and regional variations on things; all of which are bad things to lose IMO.</p>DrDeth wrote:HWalsh wrote:
Blood Money is a legendary spell. There is one copy in existence. It was never intended for players to get.
It exists. ". At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. " Thereby any Wizard can add it. If Paizo intended for it to be hard to get, they should have said something. I feel like at the very least, the "a Wizard adds 2 spells" should be limited by "spells...PossibleCabbage2017-06-13T20:51:29ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?Ravingdorkhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3062017-06-13T20:48:57Z2017-06-13T20:48:57Z<p>Can you link to that blog please?</p>Can you link to that blog please?Ravingdork2017-06-13T20:48:57ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3052018-05-06T01:53:07Z2017-06-13T20:32:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Alzrius wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">DrDeth wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">HWalsh wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Blood Money is a legendary spell. There is one copy in existence. It was never intended for players to get.</blockquote><p>It exists. ". At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. " Thereby any Wizard can add it.
<p>If Paizo intended for it to be hard to get, they should have said something. </blockquote>LOL Have to agree with DrDeth. It was NEVER called "a legendary spell", NEVER said to be "one copy in existence" or called out as "never intended for players to get". I can't understand why people KEEP saying things that aren't in the book/rules. If people want to play it like that, it's cool, but don't make it out as a fact: it's not. </blockquote><p>This reminds me of a third-party product I once saw that developed a simple mechanic for this.
<p>Certain spells had a new descriptor: [forgotten]. Any spell that had the [forgotten] descriptor could not simply be purchased in a settlement or taken as part of the free spells gained when leveling. Basically, you can <i>only</i> take such a spell if you find a copy of it during game-play. </p>
<p>That sounds like the sort of thing that <i>blood money</i> should have. </blockquote><p>Pathfinder does something like this. Look at the rare cantrip blog once:
<p>"The following spells are different from standard cantrips. They are rare cantrips. Spellcasters that gain access to all 0-level spells at 1st level do not gain access to rare cantrips. A spellcaster gains access to rare cantrips only by uncovering their secrets in some other way. Some are guarded by jealous mages, while others are lost in missing libraries or molder on forgotten scrolls."</p>
<p>If Blood Money actually HAD something like that, no one would be debating it's availability. However, even the above quote doesn't cover classes that just get spells out of the blue like sorcerers. the [forgotten] descriptor words it nicely to cover rare spells.</p>Alzrius wrote:graystone wrote: DrDeth wrote: HWalsh wrote:
Blood Money is a legendary spell. There is one copy in existence. It was never intended for players to get.
It exists. ". At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. " Thereby any Wizard can add it. If Paizo intended for it to be hard to get, they should have said something. LOL Have to agree with DrDeth. It was NEVER called "a...graystone2017-06-13T20:32:11ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?Alzriushttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3042017-06-13T19:47:06Z2017-06-13T19:47:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">DrDeth wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">HWalsh wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Blood Money is a legendary spell. There is one copy in existence. It was never intended for players to get.</blockquote><p>It exists. ". At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. " Thereby any Wizard can add it.
<p>If Paizo intended for it to be hard to get, they should have said something. </blockquote>LOL Have to agree with DrDeth. It was NEVER called "a legendary spell", NEVER said to be "one copy in existence" or called out as "never intended for players to get". I can't understand why people KEEP saying things that aren't in the book/rules. If people want to play it like that, it's cool, but don't make it out as a fact: it's not. </blockquote><p>This reminds me of a third-party product I once saw that developed a simple mechanic for this.
<p>Certain spells had a new descriptor: [forgotten]. Any spell that had the [forgotten] descriptor could not simply be purchased in a settlement or taken as part of the free spells gained when leveling. Basically, you can <i>only</i> take such a spell if you find a copy of it during game-play. </p>
<p>That sounds like the sort of thing that <i>blood money</i> should have.</p>graystone wrote:DrDeth wrote: HWalsh wrote:
Blood Money is a legendary spell. There is one copy in existence. It was never intended for players to get.
It exists. ". At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. " Thereby any Wizard can add it. If Paizo intended for it to be hard to get, they should have said something. LOL Have to agree with DrDeth. It was NEVER called "a legendary spell",...Alzrius2017-06-13T19:47:06ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3032018-03-10T23:57:55Z2017-06-13T18:39:25Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DrDeth wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">HWalsh wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Blood Money is a legendary spell. There is one copy in existence. It was never intended for players to get.</blockquote><p>It exists. ". At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. " Thereby any Wizard can add it.
<p>If Paizo intended for it to be hard to get, they should have said something. </blockquote><p>LOL Have to agree with DrDeth. It was NEVER called "a legendary spell", NEVER said to be "one copy in existence" or called out as "never intended for players to get". I can't understand why people KEEP saying things that aren't in the book/rules. If people want to play it like that, it's cool, but don't make it out as a fact: it's not.DrDeth wrote:HWalsh wrote:
Blood Money is a legendary spell. There is one copy in existence. It was never intended for players to get.
It exists. ". At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. " Thereby any Wizard can add it. If Paizo intended for it to be hard to get, they should have said something. LOL Have to agree with DrDeth. It was NEVER called "a legendary spell", NEVER said to be...graystone2017-06-13T18:39:25ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?DrDethhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3022017-06-13T18:26:11Z2017-06-13T18:26:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">HWalsh wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Blood Money is a legendary spell. There is one copy in existence. It was never intended for players to get.</blockquote><p>It exists. ". At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. " Thereby any Wizard can add it.
<p>If Paizo intended for it to be hard to get, they should have said something.</p>HWalsh wrote:Blood Money is a legendary spell. There is one copy in existence. It was never intended for players to get.
It exists. ". At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. " Thereby any Wizard can add it. If Paizo intended for it to be hard to get, they should have said something.DrDeth2017-06-13T18:26:11ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why do certain spells still exist?HWalshhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2udn8&page=7?Why-do-certain-spells-still-exist#3012017-06-09T10:35:29Z2017-06-09T10:35:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">icehawk333 wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Clone and simulacrum-</p>
<p>Two spells that completly break the game, allowing for contengnecy resserection and the creation of creatures that are so strong they may as well be a whole extra charecter.</p>
<p>These two spells are so mind-bogglingly broken, but they really get out of hand because of-</blockquote><p>Pathfinder isn't really designed for high level play. That is why APs and PFS tend to stop around level 12 to level 16.
<p>There are rare exceptions but the general rule is to stop before you get that far. Thus these spells don't play much of a problem.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote><p>Blood money-
</p>
Conceptually, this spell is neat. In practice, it's broken.
<br />
It's even more broken because, as far as I know, they still haven't come out and said that "blood money + ray of enfeeblement" doesn't work.</p>
<p>But both tend to pale in comparison to-</blockquote><p>Blood Money is a legendary spell. There is one copy in existence. It was never intended for players to get.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote><p>Emergency force sphere-
</p>
The single worst spell I have ever seen printed.
<br />
Allows you to stop any incoming attack from any direction but down as an immidate action, and makes you immune for your level in turns so you can buff or teleport away, all as a 4th level spell. This single handedly negates a martial's abilty to kill a caster, as the caster can throw this up instantly and then teleport away. Speaking of teleports...</blockquote><p>This is a level 4 spell. It is very powerful. Though it takes a 9th level Wizard or 10th level Sorcerer to pull off a EFS + Teleport combination.
<p>Though I'm disturbed at your focus on the Martial vs Caster angle here. In any case, sure you didn't kill them, but you made them flee. Let the Wizard buff all he wants, if he's in such trouble that he had to pop EFB then you win anyway unless he runs.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote><p>Teleports-
</p>
Why oh why are teleports still a full round or standard action?
<br />
This allows mages to get away from threats with little more then a five foot step and a snap of thier fingers. Even if it took two rounds, it would give Martials precious time to interrupt the ability, but instead, it's considered acceptable that wizards can basically always flee to see another day. While yes, this can be sorta negated with step up, that doesn't really solve the issue, because they can then take a crack at casting defensively, or if they're a conjuration wizard, teleport as a swift action.</blockquote><p>Again with the Martials... Oiy vey.
<p>Step up, ready an action to strike if they cast, grapple them, also note that conjuration wizards have to follow the rules of dimension door so no casting after the swift 'port.</p>icehawk333 wrote:Clone and simulacrum-
Two spells that completly break the game, allowing for contengnecy resserection and the creation of creatures that are so strong they may as well be a whole extra charecter.
These two spells are so mind-bogglingly broken, but they really get out of hand because of-
Pathfinder isn't really designed for high level play. That is why APs and PFS tend to stop around level 12 to level 16. There are rare exceptions but the general rule is to stop before you...HWalsh2017-06-09T10:35:29Z