there is a charisma magusIt is nice to know that a magus with a lot of int damage could use a scroll of this and add his charisma if its higher.
By nice I mean will never come up but funny.
Yes, the Eldritch Scion archetype.
That has more to do with them moving on to P2 than it originally being in a Softcover, they did Errata and FAQs for stuff with them.You guys won't believe this but they actually just officially errata'd Bladed Dash and have assured us "Bladed Dash is no longer a source of contention at tables."Except, being from a softcover, it is immune from actual rules clarifications (no FAQ or Errata for soft covers - because Paizo).
Are you sure of that? As far as I've seen, no softcover has ever had a FAQ page made, and no errata has ever been out. The only clarifications that might have come about from any softcover would be specific to pfs, on the campaign clarifications page - and those are few and far between.
It is nice to know that a magus with a lot of int damage could use a scroll of this and add his charisma if its higher.
By nice I mean will never come up but funny.
It's also a Bard (and consequently Skald) spell, thus the Charisma in the spell text.
I know there was a few (and posted Errata, not printed Errata), and granted yes they were very few, but it did indeed happen.
If you mean developers commenting in discussion threads, sadly, I've never met anyone who considered those actual rule changes. Only if it was on a given product's faq page.
Are you sure of that? As far as I've seen, no softcover has ever had a FAQ page made, and no errata has ever been out. The only clarifications that might have come about from any softcover would be specific to pfs, on the campaign clarifications page - and those are few and far between.
Paizo doesn't do FAQ or errata unless they're doing a reprint (because they want the dead tree to be the most up to date and correct version)
Softcovers don't get FAQ or errata
Therefore no faq for you.
They were doing PFS campaign clarifications as a backdoor faster/more frequent faq but then people complained pfs ruined everything by breaking their characters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you mean developers commenting in discussion threads, sadly, I've never met anyone who considered those actual rule changes. Only if it was on a given product's faq page.I know there was a few (and posted Errata, not printed Errata), and granted yes they were very few, but it did indeed happen.
Are you sure of that? As far as I've seen, no softcover has ever had a FAQ page made, and no errata has ever been out. The only clarifications that might have come about from any softcover would be specific to pfs, on the campaign clarifications page - and those are few and far between.
Paizo doesn't do FAQ or errata unless they're doing a reprint (because they want the dead tree to be the most up to date and correct version)
Softcovers don't get FAQ or errata
Therefore no faq for you.
They were doing PFS campaign clarifications as a backdoor faster/more frequent faq but then people complained pfs ruined everything by breaking their characters.
Oh, I know the reason they don't do the faq or errata for softcovers - the problem is, it's a stance that hurts the game as a whole. I'm hoping that they've maybe changed that view a little going into pf2, but I find it unlikely. They still feel that making books is more important than putting good rules IN those books.
Adventurer's Armory errata.If you mean developers commenting in discussion threads, sadly, I've never met anyone who considered those actual rule changes. Only if it was on a given product's faq page.I know there was a few (and posted Errata, not printed Errata), and granted yes they were very few, but it did indeed happen.
Yeah - though I believe that was one of the first companions that was released after Pathfinder actually became its own game (and before they were even branded as 'Player Companions.' Had they continued to care for their products like that, the game WOULD have been far better - and forum discussions would have been cut in half. An RPG game system needs to be a living system that accepts corrections and clarifications as they are found to be needed - threads like this very one do nothing good for the game.
Publish or perish is still the law of the market.
I fully support the idea of all hardcovers, no softcovers, so that errata can be reprinted in a more timely manner.
I'm not sure that rule really holds true like it used to. I'm guessing they sell far more pdf's than actual books these days, and that trend is likely to shift deeper into the digital direction.
Publish or perish is still the law of the market.
I fully support the idea of all hardcovers, no softcovers, so that errata can be reprinted in a more timely manner.
They could just change the rules that they made? It's not like it's an external law beyond their control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They could just change the rules that they made? It's not like it's an external law beyond their control.
And therein lies my biggest dislike about them having their game design tied to the print cycle. Rules that are acknowledged as being poorly worded or in some cases not usable are often not dealt with for reasons such as not physically fitting on the page they originated on due to word count/space, or because the book is not going to get a re-printing.
For the record, there are four lines of flavor text in the spell that they could've cut for more rule text.Four lines of flavor text, really? Have you even read the spell at all?
Yes, really. It's four lines in the book. I have read the spell, the full version of it's text, in the book's PDF. Apparently, you haven't done the same.
d20pfsrd.com is not a proper rule source. It should not be consulted at all in a rule discussion, since the site often omits or changes text. The AoN version has the entire text, including the flavor text part I was talking about, although, of course, line breaks are dynamic and based on your screen's resolution. I'm not expecting people to have the PDF, but you should really start using AoN as a source.
Third, applying a general rule to a specific circumstance doesn't always work because there are specific exceptions. You're trying to argue that your stuff is official and always applies when the wording as written would be a specific exception.
Not at all. I'm saying that the general rules are in place unless something says otherwise. The spell at best vaguely hints otherwise, it does very much not "say" otherwise. All other spells/abilities that let you fly or walk through air or something have a bunch of text on how that's handled, exactly because that is something a character can't do without specific rules.
Basically, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't presume one or two words of text to override the general rules when those two words only hint at doing so, and other spells take multiples sentences for the same purpose. To be a bit more conservative with the interpretation, and not automatically use the most beneficial interpretation that we can come up with.
|
Regarding the 'Talk to your GM' recommendation, this character is a pfs character, where 'talk to your GM' isn't necessarily an answer.
It is an option in PFS, though. There are plenty of abilities where you might want to ask your table GM how they handle them before the start of the game. If your GM is ok with it moving you up, through enemies, or whatever, and they tell you that before the game, then have fun and use it that way. If they aren’t, then don’t. Use it the more restricted way. It’s only an argument at the table if you insist your interpretation is what the GM has to use.
If you don’t want the hassle of having to ask about it, or if you feel the spell is useless if not interpreted your way, then sure, don’t take the spell. Because a GM is free to interpret rules when there is disagreement about how they work, and you should accept that at the table to avoid disrupting games.
Not at all. I'm saying that the general rules are in place unless something says otherwise. The spell at best vaguely hints otherwise it does very much not "say" otherwise.
First of all, this is a distinction that you're completely making up. If paizo follows this rule at all they do not do so with a great deal of consistency. The number of things that strict raw is law types have complained have only been "vaugely hinted at" that were blatant and or correct is staggering.
Of course a lot of things hinted at weren't really there either. There's not a great deal of consistency.
All other spells/abilities that let you fly or walk through air or something have a bunch of text on how that's handled, exactly because that is something a character can't do without specific rules.
That's a mite circular, because you wouldn't accept any other vague language for spells that might let you fly through the air as counter evidence.
Basically, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't presume one or two words of text to override the general rules when those two words only hint at doing so, and other spells take multiples sentences for the same purpose. To be a bit more conservative with the interpretation, and not automatically use the most beneficial interpretation that we can come up with.
It's not automatic, and it's not a presumption.
Tugging this way ---------> we have any direction in a straight line in a system with no facing. Like I said, I can't see why those words are there
<---- Tugging that way if it lets you leave the ground it should specifically say so and how.
<---- Tugging that way if it lets you leave the ground it should specifically say so and how.
If that’s a position someone is going to legitimately argue, I wonder what they would say about Dimension Door. Would they say you can only teleport across the ground?
If that’s a position someone is going to legitimately argue, I wonder what they would say about Dimension Door. Would they say you can only teleport across the ground?
Probably not D. Door has a lot of rules nested by virtue of being a conjuration teleport spell (such as plopping through the astral plane, whre there is no gravity)
I believe that <---- Tugging that way if it lets you leave the ground it should specifically say so and how IS a tug, i just don't consider it an especially strong one.
I agree with everything voodistmonk says except the going up part. And I would likely have difficult terrain count. Maybe I'm just being too strict but 30 feet vertical strikes for a level 2 spell is a lot. But I'm old and scared of new things.
And for my personal vision of the spell it makes you look like Johnny Cage shadow kicking.
It's in line with spells like airy step and raven's flight from a mobility perspective, both of which are superior. Also, there's more than a few attack spells at 2nd level that are on par with it as a single ranged attack. None of which put you at risk of taking some damage when you fall or putting you within striking distance of a creature.
The spell's magus-pseudo-charge aspect is the only real point of balance concern. I think the short range and daily spell limit both keep it pretty balanced.
It is corny anime stuff though, so I could imagine some DM's just wanting to avoid their NPCs blurting out "Nani!" before combat ends abruptly.
Here’s another thought regarding difficult terrain and the like: if this spell follows movement rules, can it be reduced to 20ft for armor? Or increased to 60ft with haste?
You've missed the "from a pure mobility perspective" qualifier. Also, raven's flight gives you a 50ft fly speed, the ability to use the run action with that fly speed, and is cast as a swift action. If someone is using bladed dash to get around obstacles, then they're better off with raven's flight.
I'm just looking at other spells that offer a bit of battlefield maneuverability improvement, and working down from the better duration or range to see if the single attack from the spell is worth it.
When compared to other 2nd level spells, I think it falls short with some of the stricter readings in this thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I read it as nothing more than the spell version of Spring Attack... and given that it's a lowly 2nd level spell, it makes sense that it is worth three martial feats that have a BAB +4 restriction... because spells constantly trivialize martial prowess.
Still, for literally all mechanical arguments, this spell is Spring Attack in my mind.
Nothing more, nothing less. It even has similar attack of opportunity verbiage, so...
So much wrong in this thread I'd been avoiding responding, but I will respond to this comment.
I come from the standpoint that this is magic we're talking about here.
If it would just do something you could reasonably do without magic, then it isn't really much to write home about.Like, "Behold my magic! Bladed Dash!!! Impressed? I can only cast this powerful magic twice a day (at level 5)!" Meanwhile the Fighter is Spring Attacking everything left and right all day long.
So I'd say it letting you ignore difficult terrain and/or being able to go through enemy spaces because you're being magically moved makes sense. What else would the magic effect be? You don't need magic to walk over to a dude and whack him with your sword.
You mean like if "you got to do a spring attack with a full attack attached to the end of it" kind of magic? Cause that is what this is for a magus that it isn't for any other caster class.
Or like "If I got to take a double move and still make an attack" kind of magic? Cause it works like that for all casters. Move action move, standard action cast spell, get bonus movement, and attack. That's a bit more powerful, even if situationally so, then spring attack.
Or like "I don't have to spend a precious feat slot for a more limited form of this, and I didn't have to take any mediocre pre-req feats to get it" kind of magic? I'll happily trade spell slots all day over using a feat.
And none of those comments have anything to do with whether or not it ignores difficult terrain, let's you or not move through enemies, move in an upward direction without flight, etc. Each of those a GM allows is just additional perks above what is already categorically better than the spring attack feat.
It actually IS about being a Magus... only three classes have this spell on their lists. None of the other classes are capable of turning this spell into double movement pounce attacks delivering multiple magically enhanced strikes to possibly multiple targets at the cost of a measly 2nd level spell...
It is completely reasonable to limit the 30' of movement granted by the spell to be of a movement speed you currently possess.
It is completely reasonable to limit the 30' of movement granted by the spell to abide by the hindering and difficult terrain rules.
It's already better than Spring Attack because of the no attacks of opportunity for this movement! Not just your target, everyone! You are weaving through the crowd to deliver your strike, it's WAY better than Dodge + Mobility + Spring Attack + all three of the Beast Totem Rage Powers!
Which level do you get access to 3 free feats AND three free Rage Powers in any other class? Magus. And only Magus gets it at level 4.
Sure, a Fighter/Monk could have Spring Attack at level 4, too. But they aren't double moving, they don't have magics, and it never turns into pounce.
It's Spring Attack in spell form, it's Johnny Cage shadow kick, it's awesome but calm down.
Yes, I get that it's mechanically a good effect. But compared to shooting fire from your hands or growing twice your size, "move somewhere and hit something" doesn't sound all that magical is all I'm saying. It doesn't seem to fit as a magical effect if that's all it is.
How is it not a magical effect?
You are moving so fast that nobody has time to react to your movements regardless of their level or training or experience.
You are moving so fast that you are leaving tracer images in your wake because the average mind doesn't compute information fast enough to process your movements fluidly in real time.
You can literally move your normal movement AND still do THIS!!!
POOF!
Because magic...
Nobody ever said that you couldn't use the movement to jump, 30' of extra movement equals 15' of jumping vertically, right? Especially when you can use your normal movement to jump that high before casting the spell anyways if you are so inclined to jumping.
And sure, I brought up vampires earlier as an example, so rule of cool, following the Vampire Hunter class ability, you can run across water during Bladed Dash movement. Because magic.
Kicking a rock or snagging a root at superhuman speeds just means you get to trip at excessive speed... you don't smash through the rocks that would otherwise trip you, you still have to navigate roots and debris...
AND you still navigate hazardous terrain at superhuman speed compared to literally every non-Magus... even if your movement is still halved by the terrain.
You already get to weave through crowds of enemies with impunity, AND pounce!!!
You get this before you qualify for the lowly Spring Attack feat. If you want more, just say "because magic" and snap your fingers... you win, you are the best ever, nothing can stop you, I hope you enjoyed the game...
The spell gives the other two classes that have access to it three feats and extra movement of their type... it's multiple shades shy of the shenanigans that you can pull off as a Magus.
Given that you only get what is exactly included in the text, you only get 30' of movement (the movement you already have because it doesn't say it grants you a fly/burrow/swim/climb speed), in any direction allowed in your current condition.
So, no.
To answer the OP question... no.
It's only pipedream/wishful thinking that allows all out abusive behavior involving this spell. Any logical breakdown denies such abuse.
Improved Spring Attack is locked at BAB +9...
Greater Spring Attack is BAB +16... something a Magus never has access to, other than "because magic"... they have a Greater Bladed Dash spell, because of course they do...
Think about it.