I have the Keep Watch spell on a wand. My GM has laughed at this and said the money was wasted. This is because of this line in the spell:
Target one creature touched/2 levels
His argument: if you are 1st level, this 1st level spell is useless, as you need to have TWO caster levels before this will target even one creature.
I assumed minimum one target, otherwise the spell is indeed useless, a "trap" spell that wastes your money.
Is that true? If so, anyone with a normally-priced scroll, potion, or wand of this spell is outta luck. Correct?
You think that's bad, look up Celestial Healing.
The wand is useless unless it was crafted with a higher caster level (can you do that with wands? I don't think I've ever had a character with Craft Wand).
The GM should probably let you swap it for something else because this would have come up in character during the process of buying/crafting the wand, so your character would have had more of a chance to rethink this than you the player had.
You can definitely craft a wand at higher caster level, but it does cost more.
The price for crafting wands is spell level * caster level * 750 gp. With the caster level being the minimum that a caster would have received that level of spell.
The table prices for wands assume minimum caster level, but if you're creating it you can definitely craft it at a higher level.
But yes, the Keep Watch spell is bad for 1st level.
You're GM shouldn't let your character waste money in such a way (crafting a wand that doesn't work) unless they're a jerk. So if your GM forces you to waste that money, I'd call them out for being jerk.
If he advises "Hey, that's not going to do anything, you should spend your money on something different" then he's not being a jerk and just advising you of the rules.
I think it's safe to assume a minimum of 1
You can definitely craft a wand at higher caster level, but it does cost more.
The price for crafting wands is spell level * caster level * 750 gp. With the caster level being the minimum that a caster would have received that level of spell.
The table prices for wands assume minimum caster level, but if you're creating it you can definitely craft it at a higher level.
But yes, the Keep Watch spell is bad for 1st level.
You're GM shouldn't let your character waste money in such a way (crafting a wand that doesn't work) unless they're a jerk. So if your GM forces you to waste that money, I'd call them out for being jerk.
If he advises "Hey, that's not going to do anything, you should spend your money on something different" then he's not being a jerk and just advising you of the rules.
This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have had a bad GM who in a similar situation would describe your stupid actions in-game with relish; I'd emphasise that I consider that person to be a bad GM.
I'd talk to the GM about this before the next session. There are a few fixes:
1. You get your money back and you can buy something else (the easiest fix).
2. The GM could vouse-rule that this spell has a minimum of 1 target (the nicest way to rule).
3. If you have enough money you could pretend you bought a caster-level 2 wand of Keep Watch. This doubles the price, so you'd have to pay another 750gp (the most by-the-book way to rule).
I cannot emphasize this enough: Talk to the GM before the next session and do it IN PRIVATE. Nobody reacts well to being told theiy're doing things wrong, or that they're bad at their job.
With any luck this is all a misunderstanding and your GM was simply trying to tell you to get a different wand (then they're a good GM, as they're teaching you stuff).
If they do make you live with your useless wand, remember that you can sell it back and you're only out 375gp, so it's not worth flipping the table over (even 750gp isn't worth it).
If they do make you live with your useless wand, remember that you can sell it back and you're only out 375gp, so it's not worth flipping the table over (even 750gp isn't worth it).
I disagree to the extent that a GM who will force you to do something because of a misunderstanding of the rules in this instance is the kind of GM who is going to force you into doing other things that are bad for your character and bad for your experience as a player.
The goal of Pathfinder is to have fun. That kind of GM isn't fun.
I don't know if the OP's GM is that kind of person, they haven't said yet, but I'm hoping they're a reasonable adult and will allow either the money back or a minimum of 1 target for the spell. Either of these solutions are acceptable.
If they do make you live with your useless wand, remember that you can sell it back and you're only out 375gp, so it's not worth flipping the table over (even 750gp isn't worth it).I disagree to the extent that a GM who will force you to do something because of a misunderstanding of the rules in this instance is the kind of GM who is going to force you into doing other things that are bad for your character and bad for your experience as a player.
The goal of Pathfinder is to have fun. That kind of GM isn't fun.
I don't know if the OP's GM is that kind of person, they haven't said yet, but I'm hoping they're a reasonable adult and will allow either the money back or a minimum of 1 target for the spell. Either of these solutions are acceptable.
You're right, it's indicative of a larger problem, but if this is the only issue the OP's had then it may be the GM's only foible. If you know the foibles you can plan accordingly and play around them.
If this becomes a pattern then you may want to reexamine your place in this group, but if this is an isolated incident I wouldn't let such a small penalty ruin my fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MrCharisma gave the best advice.
YESS! I Win!!
I wonder if they just forgot to add "minimum of 1" to the spell? That is how I would rule it.
I wonder if they just forgot to add "minimum of 1" to the spell? That is how I would rule it.
Yeah it's possible. It's a problem with a bunch of spells though, and there are enough of them that if this IS just a mistake then they intentionally ignored it.
But yeah that's what I'd probaboy do as a GM.
I think we (collectively, as the forums) might be reading a bit too much into this situation.
The OP has only posted once in this thread, and the GM was like "that's funny, but it doesn't work that way". The OP was asking what we thought about it, and the forums are collectively suggesting that the OP should seriously consider leaving his group?
No I don't think anyone had said that yet, but I did have conditional statements that if the GM is being a jerk you should call them out on it.
Thanks everyone. We actually found a solution that wasn't any of the suggestions here. The reason I wanted the spell was to get around the time involved in putting on armor -- if we sleep in armor, we are fatigued in the morning, but if we don't sleep in armor, we get ambushed and die because it takes 10-40 rounds to put on armor mid-combat. Using Keep Watch to have someone stand fully armored all night was my ideal solution to the problem.
Instead, we swapped the wand to Serren's Swift Girding. Now I can get the tank into full AC with a sweep of the wand, no problem. Everyone sleeps without armor and is fully rested by morning with no fatigue imposed. If we are ambushed, the tank can tank while the rest of us do ranged support.
Thank you for the discussion of the issue! I guess I'll be more careful reading the rules about this stuff in the future.
For future reference the scarlet and green cabochon ioun stone would have gotten you most of the way there, except it doesn't work on heavy armor.
Another thing your party could do is sleep in light armour. You can rest in light armour with no penalties, so get everyine a chain shirt and there's at least some protection.
Also you can still use this with the wand idea, if they put on full-plate over a chain shirt then the chain shirt simply doesn't add anything. The only downside is a slight increase to your armour check penalty while wearing both.
I played 3.5 with a group that called their chanshirt nightwear "battle jammies."
Also, I believe mithral medium armors you would be to sleep in since they count as light armor for everything but proficiency.
Also, there's the restful enchantment that you can put on the armor as well, for a flat 4500 gp. Or the restful enchantment, which is similar, but slightly more expensive (for some reason, even though I think it's worse) at 5000 gp.
If the wand is just for 1 character to use a cheaper option would be to just get the Slumbering armor modification for their armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's safe to assume a minimum of 1If it says its minimum 1, then sure. But it doesn't. Same thing with Ear-piercing Scream (though the daze isn't CL dependent), Abjuring Step (have to cast the spell but is only useful when casting other spells, at CL 1 wears off before you cast another spell), Adhesive Spittle (standard to cast, standard to spit), Sun Metal (except AoOs exist I suppose), and probably a bunch of others.
What the GM should do (if you have already purchased the wand) is to say, it was actually a CL 2 wand, but only has 25 charges. Same price.
ok, so why shouldn't a GM "fix" those as well? If it's a first level spell and can't actually be used until after 1st level, there is obviously a problem with it that should be addressed.
|
ok, so why shouldn't a GM "fix" those as well? If it's a first level spell and can't actually be used until after 1st level, there is obviously a problem with it that should be addressed.I think it's safe to assume a minimum of 1If it says its minimum 1, then sure. But it doesn't. Same thing with Ear-piercing Scream (though the daze isn't CL dependent), Abjuring Step (have to cast the spell but is only useful when casting other spells, at CL 1 wears off before you cast another spell), Adhesive Spittle (standard to cast, standard to spit), Sun Metal (except AoOs exist I suppose), and probably a bunch of others.
What the GM should do (if you have already purchased the wand) is to say, it was actually a CL 2 wand, but only has 25 charges. Same price.
The level of a spell is a measure of the effort needed to cast it, not of its efficiency. I have no problem with some 1st level spells being useless for 1st level casters if they are useful at later levels. No one force you to learn those spells at level 1.
I wonder if they just forgot to add "minimum of 1" to the spell? That is how I would rule it.
This is my assumption. There's no way the spell would be a level 1 spell and have no effect. Any GM making that ruling deserves to be thrown from his chair and replaced by someone with a bit more adjudicational wisdom.
Edit: Alternatively, they assumed that normal, generally known to the public, rounding rules apply - and that means round up at .5 rather than Pathfinder's round down.
I wonder if they just forgot to add "minimum of 1" to the spell? That is how I would rule it.This is my assumption. There's no way the spell would be a level 1 spell and have no effect. Any GM making that ruling deserves to be thrown from his chair and replaced by someone with a bit more adjudicational wisdom.
Edit: Alternatively, they assumed that normal, generally known to the public, rounding rules apply - and that means round up at .5 rather than Pathfinder's round down.
It's mostly confusing because
sometimes they do specify the minimum, which implies that there's no minimum, though I don't think the rules can be read that closely.
I'd assume that a spell, at it's minimum level, does something and that implies a minimum effect even if it's not specified because of editorial oversight.
|
|
I'd assume that a spell, at it's minimum level, does something and that implies a minimum effect even if it's not specified because of editorial oversight.I wonder if they just forgot to add "minimum of 1" to the spell? That is how I would rule it.This is my assumption. There's no way the spell would be a level 1 spell and have no effect. Any GM making that ruling deserves to be thrown from his chair and replaced by someone with a bit more adjudicational wisdom.
Edit: Alternatively, they assumed that normal, generally known to the public, rounding rules apply - and that means round up at .5 rather than Pathfinder's round down.
It's mostly confusing because
sometimes they do specify the minimum, which implies that there's no minimum, though I don't think the rules can be read that closely.
Why it should do something if cast at its minimum caster level?
AFAIK there is no one pointing a gun to your head and ordering "you must learn and memorize Keep watch at first level".Sure, if the player makes the mistake of making a wand or scroll off this spell with a CL of 1 the GM should point it to him that it does nothing and allow him to change what he makes or the CL of the item, but that is very different from changing the rules on how you count the effects of the CL of the spell because you feel that it should do something at CL 1.
Why it should do something if cast at its minimum caster level?
AFAIK there is no one pointing a gun to your head and ordering "you must learn and memorize Keep watch at first level".
Do you honestly think anyone is going to intentionally publish a spell that does nothing the first level you're able to cast it? That makes absolutely no sense to me. It makes sense that the author of that spell made a mistake about the round-off rule or that writers may forget when a 1 round duration spell ends, and it makes sense that editors might miss that. People make mistakes.
But to intentionally publish a 1st level spell that is useless to a 1st level caster with the understanding that they technically don't have to prepare it, they can wait until they're 2nd level? That's daft.
I'd assume that a spell, at it's minimum level, does something
And I think that assumption is unfounded. Maybe it's a spell that's intended to keep 1st level spell slots in use after they're no longer relevant for in-combat spells.
Yes I do think they intentionally publish spells that do nothing for first level characters.
CELESTIAL HEALING - even if you assume it's minimum 1 round - is still worse than VIRTUE, which is a cantrip.
Or forgetting any of that thejeff already pointed out BOMBER'S EYE. This spell DOES have a minimum of 1 round duration, but at 1 round you can't actually throw a bomb before the spell wears off.
I think they intended for some of these spells to be available for higher level characters, yet they wanted those characters to be able to cast them many times, or quicken them, or whatever.
Celestial Healing is useless for a first level character (even if they have a minimum of 1 it's basically useless), but by caster level 12 it does more average healing than Cure light Wounds (CH = 6hp, CLW = ~5.5 average). Even before that, Fast Healing effectively makes you immune to bleed damage, so you might find a use for it by level 8, or even level 6. This is a deliberate design choice, and there are enough spells like this that Paizo could easily have put out a blanket rule saying "minimum duration 1 round" if that's what they meant, but they didn't do that.
The problem is that people don't use Celestial Healing to stop bleeding, they want it as a spammable low-level spell that they can use to heal the party after combat. And people don't use their own spell slots for that, they buy wands (because it's the cheapest ratio of hp/gp), and wands have a stipulation that they always use the lowest caster level possible.
Back to KEEP WATCH, low level parties are SUPPOSED to be more grounded in reality, they're SUPPOSED to have to deal with things like fatigue, sunburn, etc. Having to find a safe place to rest is a challenge for them, and can be a part of the story.
Having said all that, it's not an unreasonable house-rule to make them have a minimum of 1 target, or 1 round/minute/hour/whatever. By the time you're buying a wand for something like this you're high enough level that these kinds of challenges aren't really a part of the game anymore, so it's not going to change anything. All it's doing is forcing you to make a CL2 wand at twice the price, so if you think that's too expensive (and your GM agrees) just change it.
If spells have a minimum, they will say so. If Paizo wanted all spells to have a minimum of one, they would have said so.
It is very, VERY possible that the editing team missed something. Yes. They miss A LOT... or possibly don't even exist in the first place.
Oh, the joy it brings me to see a spellcaster struggle.
Boo-freaking-hoo...
Hey, at least you aren't required to take a stupid spell or six just to get the spell you want... try learn a combat maneuver. Lol.
Yes I do think they intentionally publish spells that do nothing for first level characters.
CELESTIAL HEALING - even if you assume it's minimum 1 round - is still worse than VIRTUE, which is a cantrip.
Or forgetting any of that thejeff already pointed out BOMBER'S EYE. This spell DOES have a minimum of 1 round duration, but at 1 round you can't actually throw a bomb before the spell wears off.
The existence of these spells doesn't prove they're intentionally useless.
They could have been mistakes that the developers didn't think through.
True, but there are enough spells with this issue that they could easily have fixed it with an FAQ, and this is certainly not the first thread on the issue, so it's extremely unlikely they didn't know of this issues.
So either it was a deliberate design choice NOT to have a minimum 1 round/target/etc, or it was a deliberate choice not to make an FAQ/errata for it. Either way it's a decision made by Paizo to leave these spells as written, and as written they do nothing for a first level caster.
As I said, I don't think it's an unreasonable house-rule to change this, but it would be a house rule. The Rules As Written are pretty clear, and to claim otherwise is ... weird honestly (and this is the Rules forum so you get the Rules answer).
Or forgetting any of that thejeff already pointed out BOMBER'S EYE. This spell DOES have a minimum of 1 round duration, but at 1 round you can't actually throw a bomb before the spell wears off.This used to be true, but Jury-Rigged Bomb discovery came out, which is a swift action to use. So it can have an effect... assuming you picked up a certain discovery and ignore the fact that the discovery has a minimum level 4 alchemist. But it would be wand-able at CL1.
Oh good find =)
Hey, at least you aren't required to take a stupid spell or six just to get the spell you want... try learn a combat maneuver. Lol.
Imagine even if they had to take the lesser versions of spells before getting the better versions.
While I do think the spell was written with an intended minimum, and that's certainly how I run the spell; it is effective at first level if you cast enchantment spells with an increased caster level. It would be a waste of the varisian tattoo feat, gifted adept trait or something spell specific like that, but it is possible to make it work.
I would just say "buyer beware"--it's not my job as GM to read spells for you and make sure you've made a good choice. And in most of the groups I'm in, we would happily tease the person who bought a useless wand and call it a 375 gp life lesson :)
I would just say "buyer beware"--it's not my job as GM to read spells for you and make sure you've made a good choice. And in most of the groups I'm in, we would happily tease the person who bought a useless wand and call it a 375 gp life lesson :)
This sounds right.
Chuckles all around, and life goes on...
|
|
Why it should do something if cast at its minimum caster level?
AFAIK there is no one pointing a gun to your head and ordering "you must learn and memorize Keep watch at first level".Do you honestly think anyone is going to intentionally publish a spell that does nothing the first level you're able to cast it? That makes absolutely no sense to me. It makes sense that the author of that spell made a mistake about the round-off rule or that writers may forget when a 1 round duration spell ends, and it makes sense that editors might miss that. People make mistakes.
But to intentionally publish a 1st level spell that is useless to a 1st level caster with the understanding that they technically don't have to prepare it, they can wait until they're 2nd level? That's daft.
You consider the first level summoning spells efficient when cast by a first level caster?
How many spells there are that require you to be 2nd level to get something? Are all of them "an error of the author"? Or maybe the author has decided that balance-wise there was no problem at publishing a spell that was useless at CL 1?
As others have pointed out, some low-level spell is meant to be useful at a higher level, when first level combat spells become less useful.
|
|
Oh good find =)Or forgetting any of that thejeff already pointed out BOMBER'S EYE. This spell DOES have a minimum of 1 round duration, but at 1 round you can't actually throw a bomb before the spell wears off.This used to be true, but Jury-Rigged Bomb discovery came out, which is a swift action to use. So it can have an effect... assuming you picked up a certain discovery and ignore the fact that the discovery has a minimum level 4 alchemist. But it would be wand-able at CL1.
Personally I don't find that a great argument. Sure, most if not all of the spells that are "useless" at first level can become useful with the right build, the right feat the right race, the right archetype, or the right prestige class. But most of those were printed well after the first version of the spell was printed, or require you to have several levels.
If I take Magic knack in the Inquisitor class and 2 levels as a Fighter before becoming an Inquisitor I can cast Keep watch at CL 3 while I am a level 1 Inquisitor.
Perfectly feasible but non-efficient.
Same thing for making scrolls or wands of Keep watch. You need to make them at CL 2 and that increases the cost.
There are several spells that when put into a wand or a scroll are not efficient, while they are good when memorized.
Consider a wand of Mage armor against a Pearl of power for first level spells. The pear costs 250 gp more, but can be used for any 1st level spell and will allow you to recover a Mage armor spell that will last 1 hour/level, the wand spell last 1 hour and if you want the spell for most of the day the wand will be depleted in a short time.
all options available to a character should be of some value, even if only very limited, TTRPGs probably shouldn't have a "HAHA, GOTCHA!" mechanic where in it is completely useless. Even the 1st level summons spells at least summons something and an inventive person could still do something with it (my summoned goose blocks the closing door with a beleaguered *HONK* before disappearing in a puff of smoke), this and other spells don't even have an effect that takes place when cast if we follow them as written.
all options available to a character should be of some value, even if only very limited, TTRPGs probably shouldn't have a "HAHA, GOTCHA!" mechanic where in it is completely useless. Even the 1st level summons spells at least summons something and an inventive person could still do something with it (my summoned goose blocks the closing door with a beleaguered *HONK* before disappearing in a puff of smoke), this and other spells don't even have an effect that takes place when cast if we follow them as written.
I think it's up to the DM if they want to re-write spells to make them functional. The beneficial circle spells are completely broken as written (and I don't mean OP). By RAW the caster of such spells can never benefit from them.