| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Still no Transmutation cantrip. Seriously Paizo? It's been a year.
We finally got a feat! *CELEBRATES*
*re-reads the feat*
**Form Retention [Feat 8]**
You have trained your mind and body to tolerate polymorph magic for longer periods of time, so long as you prepare for the change appropriately. When preparing a polymorph spell that lasts 1 minute and grants a battle form, you can prepare the spell in a slot 2 levels higher than normal. This doesn't grant any of the normal benefits of heightening a spell, but the spell lasts up to 10 minutes. For example, if you prepared animal form in a 4th-level slot with Form Retention, you would cast a 2nd-level animal form that lasts for up to 10 minutes. If the spell can be Dismissed, that doesn't change.
Uh-huh.
*checks spell list*
So...
First, you can't use the feat until level 11, since Wizard has no Battle Form spells before level 4 spells.
Second, even the writer of the feat doesn't know what they're talking about. Casting Animal Form as a Wizard? Yeah, right.
Third, whyyyyy would you ever do this? Requirement to increase level means it's behind the curve as a fighting spell. Okay, fine. So I guess I'm using it for abilities like flying, swimming, other stuff for encounter use? Really? I mean, wasting a level 6 slot for stuff that's mostly level 2-4 slots, but that lasts only 10 minutes? Do these people play their own game?
But okay, I guess this is some kind of flavour, and they are concerned about power creep.
*reads Form Control*
*reads Extend Spell*
What. The.
Why did you bother writing and printing these words Paizo? Why? Who wrote this feat? Did you even bother checking what's already in the game, much less understanding how this would be used?
*sigh*
Maybe we got a decent spell. Animate Rope used to be real cool...
*reads Animate Rope*
Sooo... Using Mage Hand on some Rope with possibility to do weaker Tanglefoot? As a 1st level slot spell, this fails on so many levels.
The biggest joke is, they could've just made it a Transmutation cantrip.
I guess Paizo writers just hate Transmuter Wizards for some reason?
I feel you NoName, especially on the lack of a cantrip, that almost makes it feel like a deliberate slight against the transmuter at this point. Like the PF1 transmuter is probably a druid in PF2, and the school should just not exist as an option if the druid is supposed to be the undisputed master of polymorphing.
I haven't fully read the APG material yet, so I don't know if there are some other hidden options in there, but I know you play a transmuter and were deliberately looking for it.
That said, Animate rope is quite a bit better than mage hand. You can start manipulating a 50ft length of chain at level 1, and it has a massive range. It is a pretty flexible (no pun intended) 1st level spell, that stays useful at higher levels.
The crawl function is a little weird though, as I could bind someone with one action that is 90ft away, but it would take 9 actions to make the end of the rope crawl to them. There is something off there. Like the target was supposed to be adjacent to the rope to begin with? That is a pretty massive nerf though.
Yeah, as much as I absolutely love the APG, I really wish we got more than one new cantrip. Lack of cantrip variety has been one of my biggest complaints about the game (which admittedly isn't a very big one).
I feel you NoName, especially on the lack of a cantrip, that almost makes it feel like a deliberate slight against the transmuter at this point. Like the PF1 transmuter is probably a druid in PF2, and the school should just not exist as an option if the druid is supposed to be the undisputed master of polymorphing.
I haven't fully read the APG material yet, so I don't know if there are some other hidden options in there, but I know you play a transmuter and were deliberately looking for it.
Thanks man.
That said, Animate rope is quite a bit better than mage hand. You can start manipulating a 50ft length of chain at level 1, and it has a massive range. It is a pretty flexible (no pun intended) 1st level spell, that stays useful at higher levels.
Well, I mean, yeah, you could do it with chain too I guess, but you'd have to have a piece of chain to do it - and it's not something you can really carry around. Moreover, what do you get by manipulating it? You can move it around a bit.
Note that unlike Mage Hand, you can't even move the rope over a ravine - all it can move is along the surface of something.
I don't see how it's flexible really - it has multiple options but these are all like quick version of what you can do with Mage Hand and some patience.
The crawl function is a little weird though, as I could bind someone with one action that is 90ft away, but it would take 9 actions to make the end of the rope crawl to them. There is something off there. Like the target was supposed to be adjacent to the rope to begin with? That is a pretty massive nerf though.
Well, also look what Bind does. It's essentially weaker Tanglefoot, because the rope needs to be next to them when you cast it, and they can easily destroy a normal rope - you cannot stop them attacking it, only slow their movement slightly. And if you fail, one Move and you'll basically never catch them.
Are you sure the rope like object has to start adjacent to them? I didn’t even get a sense that was true until I read the crawl option, but it seems like a glaring oversight not to specify that the rope has to be adjacent to the target to bind it. I guess the optimist in me saw 100 ft range and the read the bind entry first and thought, that is pretty awesome. Then I read the crawl entry and was like that is really slow. It took me a bit to put the two together and think that doesn’t make sense for these two powers to work through the same spell. Carrying a chain in a bag of holding at higher levels could be pretty cool though with this spell. Depending on the intention and wether you could trip up more than one enemy it seems like it could be an interesting spell.
Are you sure the rope like object has to start adjacent to them? I didn’t even get a sense that was true until I read the crawl option, but it seems like a glaring oversight not to specify that the rope has to be adjacent to the target to bind it. I guess the optimist in me saw 100 ft range and the read the bind entry first and thought, that is pretty awesome. Then I read the crawl entry and was like that is really slow. It took me a bit to put the two together and think that doesn’t make sense for these two powers to work through the same spell. Carrying a chain in a bag of holding at higher levels could be pretty cool though with this spell. Depending on the intention and wether you could trip up more than one enemy it seems like it could be an interesting spell.
It isn't written very well. Target of the spell is a rope and thus the range from spell description should be applied to that.
Bind action also mentions a target, which is obviously a creature (or I guess someone can claim you can only bind other pieces of rope), but I wouldn't be sure you could claim that target should just be within 100 ft of you or the rope.
Still, even if you could, all you do is waste an action of two of one enemy. Note that Bind as an "Attack" tag, so trying to slow down more than 1 creature in a turn would quickly become unfeasible. I guess you could do it to some Zombies, but realistically, Grease is way better way to do that.
Slowing even one enemy down by -10ft at a range of 90ft to 100ft is pretty big deal. even if they have to be adjacent to some part of the rope, leaving a rope on the ground stretched out down a hallway you know monsters would be coming from can be pretty useful, especially if you have ranged allies.
Rereading it, you'd only be able to make two attacks on the first round you cast the spell, since you can only give it one command when you sustain it. However, that is a one action tanglefoot with a massively more useful range that you can keep using for a whole combat if you can set it up right.
the crawl function is super problematic though when I consider that it can only be commanded once a turn. that limits it speed to 10ft of crawling per turn, meaning that you can't even get the rope to move from you to its full range and tie itself off on something with one casting. Moving one end of a rope 100ft in a minute with a first level spell is woefully bad, worse than mage hand, which can move a light object, which would include the entire rope.
Slowing even one enemy down by -10ft at a range of 90ft to 100ft is pretty big deal. even if they have to be adjacent to some part of the rope, leaving a rope on the ground stretched out down a hallway you know monsters would be coming from can be pretty useful, especially if you have ranged allies.
You'd waste one of their actions, since they'd cut the rope and move and bam, out of the range of the rope.
Rereading it, you'd only be able to make two attacks on the first round you cast the spell, since you can only give it one command when you sustain it. However, that is a one action tanglefoot with a massively more useful range that you can keep using for a whole combat if you can set it up right.
You can make 3 attacks, since casting the spell gives you two actions with the rope. And yeah, it's kinda one action Tanglefoot, but it has an Attack trait, so you can only really do it once a round with reasonable chance of success unless enemy has horrendous Reflex.
And then the question is - why not Grease?
the crawl function is super problematic though when I consider that it can only be commanded once a turn. that limits it speed to 10ft of crawling per turn, meaning that you can't even get the rope to move from you to its full range and tie itself off on something with one casting. Moving one end of a rope 100ft in a minute with a first level spell is woefully bad, worse than mage hand, which can move a light object, which would include the entire rope.
Well, you should be able to Sustain it multiple times a round (unless I missed some rules), to move "faster". I still think it's much less efficient than using Mage Hand.
Attacking the rope, would be like attacking any object, and requires a spell or special ability for targeting an object (hence why it has no AC). The Escape DC exists for attempts to burst your bonds or slip out of them.
If you were going to give it an Armor Class as a GM, it should be the same as your spell DC (the object is animated) and thus it is an action that could end up being wasted. That is exceptional action economy on something that can be set up in advance. Plus if the rope runs parallel to the path they want to go, you can do it again next round.
Again, it is not hands down the best 1st level spell of all time, but it has a lot of potential to be an action waster. Even if the enemy is already close to you or you don't have the rope spread out in advance, if you cast the spell, get them and move away, you have a good chance of harrying your opponent for a full combat and getting them to waste a lot of actions worrying about a rope.
Aquarius Orb specifies that it can be sustained more than once a turn, and that most spells cannot. Flaming sphere is really, really powerful if you can sustain it multiple times a round.
EDIT: And grease can't move. Your rope can be adjacent to 10 squares, and move if you need it to. I think animated rope is pretty on par with grease as a spell actually, which puts it in the top 25-50% of first level spells , getting more useful in your first level spell slot as you gain higher level spell slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aquarius Orb specifies that it can be sustained more than once a turn, and that most spells cannot. Flaming sphere is really, really powerful if you can sustain it multiple times a round.
EDIT: And grease can't move. Your rope can be adjacent to 10 squares, and move if you need it to. I think animated rope is pretty on par with grease as a spell actually, which puts it in the top 25-50% of first level spells , getting more useful in your first level spell slot as you gain higher level spell slots.
Mark mentioned something a long time ago that Flaming Sphere is once per spell instance per round. Only spells like Spiritual Weapon will be able to be sustained multiple times a turn.
Mark mentioned something a long time ago that Flaming Sphere is once per spell instance per round. Only spells like Spiritual Weapon will be able to be sustained multiple times a turn.Aquarius Orb specifies that it can be sustained more than once a turn, and that most spells cannot. Flaming sphere is really, really powerful if you can sustain it multiple times a round.
EDIT: And grease can't move. Your rope can be adjacent to 10 squares, and move if you need it to. I think animated rope is pretty on par with grease as a spell actually, which puts it in the top 25-50% of first level spells , getting more useful in your first level spell slot as you gain higher level spell slots.
Yeah, that is why the crawl function on this spell seems needlessly restrictive. Like maybe the writer thought it could be sustained 3 times, moving it 30ft in a round, but it doesn't actually work that way in practice.
Attacking the rope, would be like attacking any object, and requires a spell or special ability for targeting an object (hence why it has no AC). The Escape DC exists for attempts to burst your bonds or slip out of them.
Errr, no? You can literally attack any object. That's why there's a nice list of hardness and HP. In fact, the spell itself nicely lists the Hardness and HP of the standard rope precisely for this reason.
Compare to Tanglefoot, which explicitly summons a magical thing, and only allows Escape.
If you were going to give it an Armor Class as a GM, it should be the same as your spell DC (the object is animated) and thus it is an action that could end up being wasted.
There is no reason to do that. The spell says no such thing, and reading the spell in full, the rope is obviously barely capable of moving itself. It cannot even support itself off the ground.
That is exceptional action economy on something that can be set up in advance. Plus if the rope runs parallel to the path they want to go, you can do it again next round.
I don't see it, all enemy needs to do is finish their turn 5ft away from rope. If they care about their speed.
Again, it is not hands down the best 1st level spell of all time, but it has a lot of potential to be an action waster. Even if the enemy is already close to you or you don't have the rope spread out in advance, if you cast the spell, get them and move away, you have a good chance of harrying your opponent for a full combat and getting them to waste a lot of actions worrying about a rope.
I definitively do not see this being done. It's an action waster for sure, but for the Wizard, not the enemies.
Try it out in a combat and see.
EDIT: And grease can't move. Your rope can be adjacent to 10 squares, and move if you need it to. I think animated rope is pretty on par with grease as a spell actually, which puts it in the top 25-50% of first level spells , getting more useful in your first level spell slot as you gain higher level spell slots.
Grease doesn't really need to move. It's way better even if we ignore that it makes enemies standing on it flat footed even if they pass the save, not to mention the ability to use on items held by creatures.
Attacking the rope, would be like attacking any object, and requires a spell or special ability for targeting an object (hence why it has no AC). The Escape DC exists for attempts to burst your bonds or slip out of them.Errr, no? You can literally attack any object. That's why there's a nice list of hardness and HP. In fact, the spell itself nicely lists the Hardness and HP of the standard rope precisely for this reason.
Compare to Tanglefoot, which explicitly summons a magical thing, and only allows Escape.
If you were going to give it an Armor Class as a GM, it should be the same as your spell DC (the object is animated) and thus it is an action that could end up being wasted.There is no reason to do that. The spell says no such thing, and reading the spell in full, the rope is obviously barely capable of moving itself. It cannot even support itself off the ground.
That is exceptional action economy on something that can be set up in advance. Plus if the rope runs parallel to the path they want to go, you can do it again next round.I don't see it, all enemy needs to do is finish their turn 5ft away from rope. If they care about their speed.
Again, it is not hands down the best 1st level spell of all time, but it has a lot of potential to be an action waster. Even if the enemy is already close to you or you don't have the rope spread out in advance, if you cast the spell, get them and move away, you have a good chance of harrying your opponent for a full combat and getting them to waste a lot of actions worrying about a rope.
I definitively do not see this being done. It's an action waster for sure, but for the Wizard, not the enemies.
Try it out in a combat and see.
EDIT: And grease can't move. Your rope can be adjacent to 10 squares, and move if you need it to. I think animated rope is pretty on par with grease as a spell actually, which puts it in the top...
There are threads and threads on this board discussing the "attack an object" question, but the general consensus is that the wording is not present in the core rulebook to allow you to make a strike action against objects, which is a big part of why objects do not have ACs. Your GM is butchering this spell if they allow an enemy to attack the rope with strike actions and not giving it an AC determined by your spell level.
There is an issue with the crawl function of this spell, but the bind function is at least equal to other first level spells when range is factored in on a spell that can restrict movement, and be used from round to round.
I don't really understand why you are trying to argue for rules interpretation nerfing of a transmutation spell that doesn't need to be nerfed.
There are threads and threads on this board discussing the "attack an object" question, but the general consensus is that the wording is not present in the core rulebook to allow you to make a strike action against objects, which is a big part of why objects do not have ACs.
I've not seen these threads (not saying there aren't any, but I definitively haven't seen any), but that would make no sense whatsoever.
For example, there is a sidebar about Doors, Gates, and Walls that talks about Demolishing the same, and which both lists Hardness and HP, but also explicitly lists some stuff (like well build Masonry) that requires specialised tools and downtime.This clearly tells you characters can indeed Strike at these objects, they just need a way to punch through so much Hardness.
Any GM that would not allow their players to Strike an object would deserve those players to leave them immediately.
Your GM is butchering this spell if they allow an enemy to attack the rope with strike actions and not giving it an AC determined by your spell level.
Again, I would argue the exact opposite. There is nothing in the spell that says rope should get that AC, and it goes against the grain - compare to the Black Tentacles which explicitly grants spell DC as AC to the tentacles.
Animate Rope actually says simply "breaks the rope", without giving the spell DC to the rope.
I don't really understand why you are trying to argue for rules interpretation nerfing of a transmutation spell that doesn't need to be nerfed.
Because I am trying to interpret rules in a consistent fashion, not try a loophole to buff spells.
This thread here talks about the complexities of targeting objects and doing damage to them:
Basically, the rules are actually pretty explicit about what can be targeted by strikes and objects are not listed there and are excluded from most, but not all spells as well.
There is a lot of debate about why or whether it is intended.
For me, it is pretty obvious that most actions of significance are supposed to hinge on the outcome of D20 roll in PF2.
Assigning an arbitrarily low AC to a rope turns this 1st level spell into garbage for one of the cooler functions it has, and is not something the rule book tells you to do. Even if you want to decide that anyone can attack any object with a strike, and not an athletics check, it should still be against the same DC.
Remember, saying that you cannot strike an object is not the same thing as saying you cannot attack an object as a martial. Force Open, Escape, and disarm are all much better representations of attacking most objects than making a standard strike against them. Personally, I would like one more action called destroy or something similar that interacts more directly with objects. Yes all objects need hardness and HP for the spells and special feats that interact with them, but it would be a glaring oversight if the intention of the game was that anyone can attack an unattended object with a strike and they just never listed a default AC for unattended objects, that would have been errata'd very quickly if that was the intention.
I'm sorry, but very first response to the question contains the answer:
"Damaging an unattended item usually requires attacking it directly, and can be difficult due to that item’s Hardness and immunities." Core Rulebook pg. 461 [Items and Hit Points]
I'm not talking about someone throwing a general Fireball. This is attacking it directly.
Why create yet another action (Destroy) when action already exists (Strike)? It does all it needs to do. Assign AC based on what kind of object it is and move on.
Attacking =/= striking.
No one disagrees that the wording around damaging objects is unclear in the core rulebook, so it is ok to decide how to do it at your own table, but if you set incredibly low ACs for attacking objects, you are giving Martial characters another massive leg up on casters for no good reason.
When you cast spells, most variable effects not stated in the spell itself should be determined by the caster's spell casting ability. So at least give the rope a reasonable AC based upon the spell caster.
See, I like to handle it with an athletics check with the escape DC and just give a circumstance or even an item bonus if the target can attack it with a slashing weapon that seems like it should give a bonus to freeing oneself from the rope.
|
The biggest joke is, they could've just made it a Transmutation cantrip.
I guess Paizo writers just hate Transmuter Wizards for some reason?
I feel your pain. They should have made Animate Rope into a cantrip. But since they didn't, I reduced Mending to a Cantrip, and also made changes to Sigil to actually make it useful. It's the only actual Transmutation cantrip in the book.
Sigil (pg 369): You always know the direction toward your Sigil, even if the target is invisible. If you are trying to Seek the sigil bearer, you gain a +4 status bonus to your Perception roll.