In First Edition there was a spell called arcane mark. In Second Edition its name is changed into sigil. Recently I found out that there is an upgraded version of this spell called synchronize. Can I assume that synchronize is clearly better than sigil in every way? Would it be redundant to learn both sigil and synchronize?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In First Edition there was a spell called arcane mark. In Second Edition its name is changed into sigil. Recently I found out that there is an upgraded version of this spell called synchronize. Can I assume that synchronize is clearly better than sigil in every way? Would it be redundant to learn both sigil and synchronize?
The thing with Synchronize is that it costs a spell slot just to target multiple creatures, and it has a set duration; not sure what this could be useful for, but I imagine there are certain scenarios where you are timed that it would matter, which makes it super niche as a spell (slot) as is. (I also really want to know how you can touch 20 creatures with the heightened version, unless you are Large or larger, or the other creatures are Tiny size, all able to fit into a few squares, since you can't fit 20 targets within reach of you otherwise, but one silly design argument at a time here.)
Sigil, on the other hand, is a Cantrip, which can let you cast it constantly, but its duration is set based on what maximum level spell you can cast, up to and including permanency. Otherwise, it's great for certain story-telling things, such as branding criminals for their crimes they did, "livestock" (in an Evil sense), signs of protection from certain constructs/undead, marking areas you've explored before if you are in a maze, etc.
Synchronize could fulfill a similar niche, but its limited duration is definitely an issue in that sense unless the idea of it being fleetingly temporary (such as some form of "membership" mark) is a benefit to those utilizing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even see Sigil and Synchronize being related, much less having overlap or redundancy. The only similarity that they have is that they create a visible glyph.
Sigil is basically for spreading graffiti. You can cast it as many times as you want, and the glyph lasts for a noticeable amount of time. It also doesn't have to be placed on a creature.
Synchronize is for coordination and timing. The glyph only lasts for a limited amount of time, but that time is very precise. It is also only usable once per spell slot or item that you cast it from.
(I also really want to know how you can touch 20 creatures with the heightened version, unless you are Large or larger, or the other creatures are Tiny size, all able to fit into a few squares, since you can't fit 20 targets within reach of you otherwise, but one silly design argument at a time here.)
This is actually pretty easy to explain honestly.
In an encounter each combatant takes up a 5 foot square (discounting tiny creatures and other corner cases like mounted characters and their mounts). So if you are casting Synchronize in combat, then you would be limited to a max of 8 targets, assuming you have a standard 5 foot reach.
Out of an encounter, 5 square feet is enough for something like 3-8 people. The average is about 1.6 people per 1 Sq. Ft. So if you are just trying to mark 20 people with Synchronize for some reason, you could pretty reasonably get 20 people in close enough for long enough for that purpose, with some extra space even. At most you could crowd around 24 people around a single character and have them all be "within reach".
*Note: 3-8/square is obviously an approximation, but there is plenty of wiggle room for 20 people. Imagine a mosh pit and how many people you could reasonably be in close proximity to in that situation.
Off Topic, reading synchronize makes me want to make a time logic puzzle where the party has to use Synchronize to measure time drift between planes. I'll have to think up a good reason for them to do so, but it's neat that the spell notes that time can elapse differently for different spell targets and is tracked accurately by the spell.
In an encounter each combatant takes up a 5 foot square (discounting tiny creatures and other corner cases like mounted characters and their mounts). So if you are casting Synchronize in combat, then you would be limited to a max of 8 targets, assuming you have a standard 5 foot reach.
Also, of course, Reach. Which is rarely hard to get.
And also a must-have for all casters without exceptions. The abundance of touch and 30-ft spells in this game is staggering.
Do you mean a reach weapon? Or a creature's natural reach being farther than 5 feet?
The first is easy to get. A longspear. Unfortunately, you cannot use a longspear to "touch" the target of a touch spell without some other ability like Spellstrike making that happen.
A spell with a range of touch requires you to physically touch the target. You use your unarmed reach to determine whether you can touch the creature. You can usually touch the target automatically, though the spell might specify that the target can attempt a saving throw or that you must attempt a spell attack roll. If an ability increases the range of a touch spell, start at 0 feet and increase from there.
Enlarge would work and grant you a larger size giving you far more potential squares to work with, but there aren't that many abilities that actually increase your unarmed Reach and few of those are available to a caster. I struggle to think of one actually.
Or you could use Reach Spell to Synchronize people within 30 feet. Because why not if you have the feat?
(I also really want to know how you can touch 20 creatures with the heightened version, unless you are Large or larger, or the other creatures are Tiny size, all able to fit into a few squares, since you can't fit 20 targets within reach of you otherwise, but one silly design argument at a time here.)This is actually pretty easy to explain honestly.
In an encounter each combatant takes up a 5 foot square (discounting tiny creatures and other corner cases like mounted characters and their mounts). So if you are casting Synchronize in combat, then you would be limited to a max of 8 targets, assuming you have a standard 5 foot reach.
Out of an encounter, 5 square feet is enough for something like 3-8 people. The average is about 1.6 people per 1 Sq. Ft. So if you are just trying to mark 20 people with Synchronize for some reason, you could pretty reasonably get 20 people in close enough for long enough for that purpose, with some extra space even. At most you could crowd around 24 people around a single character and have them all be "within reach".
*Note: 3-8/square is obviously an approximation, but there is plenty of wiggle room for 20 people. Imagine a mosh pit and how many people you could reasonably be in close proximity to in that situation.
Off Topic, reading synchronize makes me want to make a time logic puzzle where the party has to use Synchronize to measure time drift between planes. I'll have to think up a good reason for them to do so, but it's neat that the spell notes that time can elapse differently for different spell targets and is tracked accurately by the spell.
So your argument for it to work is that you can only realistically allow casting on 20 people out-of-combat, even though the spell is designed to be cast in-combat as denoted by its action count, and that in a combat setting, you are still limited to 8 targets (or whatever your normal reach is) at-most. See, that's kind of the problem I'm presenting, and this doesn't really do anything to assuage that, since this is essentially just GM Handwavium at play, here. There isn't anything mechanically otherwise permitting this, which means that it's table variation at-best and at-worst is just simply not possible. Kay. Thanks for explaining in better detail why this is mechanically not feasible to do, and what it would take for it to be.
It would also depend on how you are touching all 20 of those people at the time of casting, as it lacks the language needed in the case of Teleport, where characters whom are attached to others that you are touching travel with. Unless you are able to land all of your fingers and toes (let's hope your character isn't depicted as missing any digits!) on every single person, simultaneously, this isn't possible, and creates a disconnect, since you must be able to touch all targets at the time of casting, and can't change that later. It would also take far longer than approximately 4 seconds of chanting and purposeful touching to affect 20 people with the spell, meaning logistically, it's almost as bad as Battle Medicine.
Incidentally, this can be easily solved if you had the Reach spell, since this means all targets can be with 30 feet, which more than handily solves this issue, but the problem is that, to get the full potential of this spell, it now requires a feat to do so, which essentially functions as a feat tax to get full functionality out of this spell, which is a problem. Feats are supposed to make you do more than what is normally possible, not make something that was supposedly written to work to now actually be able to work.
Now, I get that Synchronize is a very niche and largely non-useful spell, so it doesn't entirely matter that you should need the feat for it to properly work, but this very similar problem befell Battle Medicine, and it took time for it to get clarification/errata to be at-least functional; I'd rather not hide behind the guise of "It's already bad/niche, so who cares if it's even more bad/niche than what it already is" as justification for an option to be worse than what it has been designed to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your argument for it to work is that you can only realistically allow casting on 20 people out-of-combat, even though the spell is designed to be cast in-combat as denoted by its action count, a
No it isn't.
No it isn't.
So your argument for it to work is that you can only realistically allow casting on 20 people out-of-combat, even though the spell is designed to be cast in-combat as denoted by its action count, a
Yes, it is. Re-read the post(s) again.
In an encounter each combatant takes up a 5 foot square (discounting tiny creatures and other corner cases like mounted characters and their mounts). So if you are casting Synchronize in combat, then you would be limited to a max of 8 targets, assuming you have a standard 5 foot reach.
Out of an encounter, 5 square feet is enough for something like 3-8 people. The average is about 1.6 people per 1 Sq. Ft. So if you are just trying to mark 20 people with Synchronize for some reason, you could pretty reasonably get 20 people in close enough for long enough for that purpose, with some extra space even. At most you could crowd around 24 people around a single character and have them all be "within reach".
He literally states that, in-combat, assuming Touch range of a Medium-sized caster, only 8 Small (or larger) creatures can be touched with a singular casting of the spell. And then in the next paragraph, follows up that out-of-combat, which doesn't use a grid map (usually), doesn't follow the in-combat restrictions, and therefore is what permits you to be able to target 20 people in the first place; otherwise, it's not feasible. To recap how I summarized his argument:
So your argument for it to work is that you can only realistically allow casting on 20 people out-of-combat, even though the spell is designed to be cast in-combat as denoted by its action count, and that in a combat setting, you are still limited to 8 targets (or whatever your normal reach is) at-most.
Seems pretty word-for-word to me. Not sure how you came to a different conclusion.
Not only are you trying to speak of the intention of someone else, who is more than capable of speaking for themselves, you're trying to say that I can't ascertain the statements they are making, when I have actually done just that, and the quotes back that up. Nice try at the gaslight, though.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You said the spell is designed to be cast in combat. The spell has a 24 hour duration and has no benefit in combat. The spell is designed to allow multiple people to coordinate something with perfect timing so every can do a thing at the same time. Which you can't actually do in combat.
The fact that the spell doesn't take long to cast does not mean it is a combat spell. The rest of your post is irrelevant because it is based on this faulty assumption. You do this a lot.
Spells that can be cast in combat aren't necessarily combat spells. You could cast a lot of spells in combat that would have no practical effect on the combat itself. Object Reading for example only costs 2 actions to cast. Is it a "combat" spell?
The most common use of Synchronize i can think of is for timing an event where the party has to split up. Think a heist or ambush where split second timing is important. You aren't likely to have time in a combat round to plan out then setup and execute something like that.
And the most likely mode of play you will be in when using the spell is either exploration or downtime. So the rules on size space and reach are a lot more flexible. And that flexibility is a feature, not a bug of ttrpg's. Sometimes the real answer is that it works because the gm says it works.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve heard of crazy people who think disintegrate is a combat spell rather than a tunnel excavator.
I’ve heard of crazy people who think disintegrate is a combat spell rather than a tunnel excavator.
I mean, you have to roll to hit and they get to save. Obviously a construction tool being used incorrectly.
You said the spell is designed to be cast in combat. The spell has a 24 hour duration and has no benefit in combat. The spell is designed to allow multiple people to coordinate something with perfect timing so every can do a thing at the same time. Which you can't actually do in combat.
The fact that the spell doesn't take long to cast does not mean it is a combat spell. The rest of your post is irrelevant because it is based on this faulty assumption. You do this a lot.
Okay, then consider this: If this was meant to be a purely non-combat spell, why have options to have it be castable in combat by denoting actions? We already have rules and published spells for non-combat spells that have components and take longer than usual to cast. Why didn't we just follow those rules for this if the idea is that this isn't a combat-oriented spell?
The idea that it's meant to be castable in combat means that it has action costs, and that it should be at least functional in combat. The 2nd level version simply isn't, if the assumption is you want to affect up to 20 people with it, at least without any outside assistance, like the Reach Spell feat. Does Haste, Heal, et. al. have any of those issues? No. You don't need the Reach Spell feat to be able to adequately target the creatures you want within the given range, and it's not like it's physically impossible for Haste/Heal to affect the listed number of creatures at the given range. So why should this spell be purposefully gutted when it's already bad/niche enough as it is?
I think a simple errata of the 2nd level version increasing the Range to 30 feet would fix this, but I just think it's poor form to say that it's acceptable for a spell to not function properly based on what its intended goal is (to be able to affect up to 20 people without range), just because that's how poorly it's written, and that it's somehow not "wrong" or "in error" when it doesn't even function by RAW.
Spells that can be cast in combat aren't necessarily combat spells. You could cast a lot of spells in combat that would have no practical effect on the combat itself. Object Reading for example only costs 2 actions to cast. Is it a "combat" spell?
The most common use of Synchronize i can think of is for timing an event where the party has to split up. Think a heist or ambush where split second timing is important. You aren't likely to have time in a combat round to plan out then setup and execute something like that.
And the most likely mode of play you will be in when using the spell is either exploration or downtime. So the rules on size space and reach are a lot more flexible. And that flexibility is a feature, not a bug of ttrpg's. Sometimes the real answer is that it works because the gm says it works.
There's "castable in combat," and then there's "impossible in combat." Object Reading is castable in combat, and based on circumstances, may be relevant to do so (such as if you're being chased by guards in a stronghold that houses a macguffin that has long history with the BBEG, who is soon returning from their latest conquest). It's not necessarily a combat spell, but there can be instances where having it castable in combat is a good idea. It also doesn't fizzle or fail to work as intended when cast in combat compared to out of combat.
Compared to unleashing the full potential of Synchronize, which is "impossible in combat" (and you even agreed with that in your explanation), it's a far better functional "combat spell."
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, then consider this: If this was meant to be a purely non-combat spell, why have options to have it be castable in combat by denoting actions? We already have rules and published spells for non-combat spells that have components and take longer than usual to cast. Why didn't we just follow those rules for this if the idea is that this isn't a combat-oriented spell?
This is a bizarre line of thinking. Every spell that's not meant to be used in combat should have an arbitrarily long cast time to denote that it's not meant to be used in combat?
I don't see how that benefits anyone.
Okay, then consider this: If this was meant to be a purely non-combat spell, why have options to have it be castable in combat by denoting actions? We already have rules and published spells for non-combat spells that have components and take longer than usual to cast. Why didn't we just follow those rules for this if the idea is that this isn't a combat-oriented spell?This is a bizarre line of thinking. Every spell that's not meant to be used in combat should have an arbitrarily long cast time to denote that it's not meant to be used in combat?
I don't see how that benefits anyone.
Yeah. Sometimes a spell has a 2 action cast because that is what the designer decided was fair based on whatever system the developers use to balance things.
Sometimes a spell takes a full minute for no discernable reason.
It is possible to use Perform in combat. Does that make it a combat action?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, for some classes and feats, as far as I remember :-P
It is possible to use Perform in combat. Does that make it a combat action?
Ah. That is a check using Performance the skill for another purpose, not the "Perform" action.
Related, but different. Those abilities you mention, mostly bard stuff but also from archetypes like Gladiator, are not themselves a Perform action. They are a separate action or activity that happens to use a characters Performance skill, in the same way that Recall Knowledge using Crafting wouldn't be a Repair or Craft activity.
Edit: Clarity and linked relevant AoN pages.
The idea that it's meant to be castable in combat means that it has action costs, and that it should be at least functional in combat.
It is functional in combat.
It is also practically useless in combat, but that doesn't mean that it is not functional. And it is not the only spell that has a casting time measured in actions that is practically useless in combat.
And while you may not be able to get the full count of possible targets in combat, that also does not mean that it is not functional.
Battledancer has to use a Performance check to Perform. It is the Perform action.Yes, for some classes and feats, as far as I remember :-P
It is possible to use Perform in combat. Does that make it a combat action?Ah. That is a check using Performance the skill for another purpose, not the "Perform" action.
Related, but different. Those abilities you mention, mostly bard stuff but also from archetypes like Gladiator, are not themselves a Perform action. They are a separate action or activity that happens to use a characters Performance skill, in the same way that Recall Knowledge using Crafting wouldn't be a Repair or Craft activity.
Edit: Clarity and linked relevant AoN pages.
Fair dues. Is that the only one?
Not sure what all this latest bumfp has to do with sigil.
Okay, then consider this: If this was meant to be a purely non-combat spell, why have options to have it be castable in combat by denoting actions? We already have rules and published spells for non-combat spells that have components and take longer than usual to cast. Why didn't we just follow those rules for this if the idea is that this isn't a combat-oriented spell?This is a bizarre line of thinking. Every spell that's not meant to be used in combat should have an arbitrarily long cast time to denote that it's not meant to be used in combat?
I don't see how that benefits anyone.
Not that bizarre. Look at Restoration. It has a 1 minute cast time, but is infinitely far more combat-oriented than Synchronize could ever be, by being able to remove conditions or neutralize toxins/poisons/diseases. Yet, I can't cast it in combat because of an arbitrary 1 minute cast time.
There are also the new 2 Round cast time spells that can be either extremely overpowered or easy to prepare against depending on how the GM rules targeting, etc. These are also obviously combat spells, but have long cast times and make them clunky to use in an ever-moving combat setting. Yes, those spells can be cast earlier, or within the actual action system instead, but the fact of the matter is that they can exist across multiple rounds, making it similarly clunky, and yet we're just going to allow it because the developers made that design decision. Really, outside of Specific Trumps General and Too Bad to Be True, those 2 round effects can't even come to pass based on the already expressed spellcasting rules.
But again, if the design aspect is that this spell is never meant to be used in a combat setting, then making it a "1 round" cast time spell both makes it an effectively "1 spell/round" spell cast (meaning you aren't "wasting" time on a "long cast time" spell), while also making it inaccessible to cast in Combat due to it now falling under the "Long Cast Time Spell" rules.
I would also still like to point out that even if we did limit it to an Out of Combat only spell, you would still be fundamentally unable to affect 20 creatures with the spell based on both spacing, Touch spell rules, and requiring GM FIAT to function. Unless we have 20 hands with over 10 feet reach, or are limiting ourselves to Tiny creatures, this isn't feasible.
The idea that it's meant to be castable in combat means that it has action costs, and that it should be at least functional in combat.It is functional in combat.
It is also practically useless in combat, but that doesn't mean that it is not functional. And it is not the only spell that has a casting time measured in actions that is practically useless in combat.
And while you may not be able to get the full count of possible targets in combat, that also does not mean that it is not functional.
Then it appears you and I have a different definition of what is "functional." Which is fine. But I'd like to expand upon my opinion a bit further to express how I come to my conclusion, since I'd rather not be drowned out by a pre-conceived definition; not because it's wrong, but because using it means an understanding cannot be reached.
To me, "functional" is that you can use the spell for what it was intended for in a means that the spell is written to allow you to do. To expand what I mean, spells Haste, Heal, etc. are all "functional" spells, because Haste lets you target a creature with 30 feet, Heal lets you target from a range of Touch, 30 feet, or create a 30 foot Emanation, based on action usage, and so on. There is no issue with the ability to target a creature from a range that is logistically impossible based on the intended range and target lines.
The reason why I say the spell Synchronize is not functional (more specifically, the heightened version) is because the spell cannot reasonably accomplish this, making it "non-functional." As of right now, it is currently written with the assumption that you can, in fact, target 20 people in a range of touch with a single casting, with no additional language or descriptions that alter the rules for you to do this in any fashion, when the mechanics for this are physically impossible without some extremely niche situations. Beowulf99 even agrees with the concept, and expresses that the rules in combat only realistically permit the capacity to have 8 creatures be in the range of Touch at a given time, and that doesn't even take into consideration that most Touch spells could require a suitable appendage for each desired target, since someone can't realistically affect more than 2 or 3 people with a Touch spell without possessing more than the game's assumed bipedal figure that all PCs are mechanically listed to have. Even in most of Exploration Mode, if a grid map is used, and the game realistically adheres to said grid map, you're still limited to 1 character per square in the events that Exploration Mode eventually leads to Encounter Mode (such as by opening a door to encounter enemies).
In addition, the only reason this is being overlooked is because the combat usefulness for this spell is practically non-existent. If this was a spell with combat usefulness, like Haste, Heal, etc. there would A. be more threads about it, and B. most likely be up for errata/clarification. The justification of it not being so because of its niche usage, in my opinion, isn't an excuse to just let a spell continue to be fundamentally broken, or require Handwavium to function.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah. I'm tired of being baited into arguments that make no sense.