Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Lion Blade

Tacticslion's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 7,009 posts (8,751 including aliases). 2 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 24 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,009 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You've got to be one of my favorite elitist jerks, though! :D

EDIT: I'm trying to say you're one of the people I like 'round here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
You don't apply the mythic rules in a way that makes sense for the game? You just yell "YOU'RE MYTHIC" and they win the game?

Ah! I just realized one more thing about this that seemed "off" that I was trying to figure... and now I realize it.

This basically ignores my entire line of how I interpret the rules texts, and presumes andrewww's assumption of greater caster levels. Otherwise, you can't hit an "I win" button with this. I addressed three of the most broken elements in the game already, and am interested in more: gate doesn't allow you to summon anything (twice your caster level is still "--") and while planar travel is cool, I guess, that's not all that impressive. Fabricate and true creation also rely on caster level.

Given that there is no casting stat (any time an ability score is lacking, unless otherwise noted, the rules explicitly treat it as having a modifier of +0, and if you have a non-ability, but increase it, such as a vermin gaining intelligence from hit dice increases, it "increases" to "1" as if from zero), no caster level (though some have posted interesting tricks for acquiring those), and similar things (under the interpretation I gave above), I'm curious, now, exactly what a player would be able to come up with. They certainly wouldn't be able to be a "buffer", as I originally noted, as they have a CL of 0. It would be very interesting to see what a player could come up with under that paradigm.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
xavier c wrote:
Stop it!

Stop your face!

Please be aware that this is purely for the purpose of humor and enjoyment, and not to be taken seriously in any regard.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
You don't apply the mythic rules in a way that makes sense for the game? You just yell "YOU'RE MYTHIC" and they win the game?

I do want to say, however, that this does make an interesting premise. It implies that the game in this case is something that can be definitively won with a singular ability.

Even a spontaneous sorcerer with free ability to access all ninth-level spells, and the ability to convert his lower level spell slots to ninth level spells on a one-to-one basis can't actually "auto-win" any more than any other caster can "auto-win". Certainly, a GM could just, you know, roll over, but a GM has the benefit of, you know, being a GM. If the GM doesn't want someone to auto-win, they won't. There are always bigger fish somewhere (and even Cthulu is kind of chumpish - which fits, given that he's really naught more than a minor thing - comparatively - in his own works of literature).

All that said, there's actually nothing wrong with going, "YOU'RE MYTHIC!" and allowing a player to "win" - it all depends on the social dynamic. Most games that are, "You win!" mean that the game is over, and a new one will have to start - after all, the player just "won", right? Some like to explore what happens after the player "wins"... and that could be an interesting game experience in its own right.

And, beyond that, let's take a hypothetical commoner. Let's make him, say, fourth level. Suddenly, he gains mythic 1! Woo! He totally takes this ability, and, you know, I'm totes gonna let him have his CL equal to his hit dice... plus his mythic rank! DOODZ! HE PWNS!

... accept, he's still a fourth level commoner. He might (maybe) be able to push his hp all the way up to (6+6+6+6+12 temporary+CON mod*lvl = 36+[CON mod*lvl]; let's say 18 +2 racial +4 enhancement +5 inherent +2 bonus = 31 or +10; that's 40; total: 76 hp) 76, maybe? That's pretty impressive as a 4th level commoner!

... but I'm still hecka susceptible to the humble first level sleep spell. Or worse, a first level witch! Even a fourth level fighter could crush me in a few rounds, despite my draconic options.

But... but... but... simulacra! Right, that's why I added the +5 inherent bonus. But I find it exceptionally interesting that a commoner with no ranks in knowledge (planes) knows how to make replicas of creatures so very well.

Barbarians, fighters and so on are tougher, naturally. But... that just means "don't target their fortitude saves". Oh, gee, I wish I had a creature that targeted his will saves within APL+3... hm... unfortunately, I'm sure there's nothing like that?

And heaven forbid someone ever use dispel magic! The terror of a third level spell!

The point is, it doesn't break the game unless a GM allows it to. And even under the greater amounts of permissiveness, it's strange to come to the conclusion that they automatically win the game.

Admittedly, the more powerful they get, the more impact their spell-power will have. But a GM has the power of GM. There is nothing mightier than that, and a player who seeks to break things would do well to remember that there are entire races of creatures (many of which are easily more powerful than the player, some of which may have the same "trick" themselves) that exist to keep the universe from falling apart.

Incidentally, monk actually has a caster level, is not a spontaneous caster, and could choose this ability. Intriguing.

Regardless, the point is that under the most broken things, sure, things will get broken.

But the reading I propose? Doesn't actually cause most of those problems. As I said, a 0 minute duration shapechange, right up there with a 0 HD simulacrum as "not impressive".

EDIT:

LazarX wrote:
But nothing is broken! Only an extreme idiot of a GM would allow a player this, and if we're going to dumb down Pathfinder to accommodate that class of idiot, I'd rather find another game to play.

Thank you. Good to know my standing in your eyes! :D

Quark Blast wrote:

And I'm say'n, just play 4E.

All the classes are MYTHIC.
:)

This is false. Thanks for playing, though!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

You... do realize we're playing mythic, right?

;)

You don't apply the mythic rules in a way that makes sense for the game? You just yell "YOU'RE MYTHIC" and they win the game?

Pffffft!

In ways that make sense to the game, certainly. What we disagree on is what makes sense for the game. Hence:

me wrote:

Do I think it works RAW? Yeah, sure. But, for reasons that wraithstrike pointed out, it also can not work through RAW.

That which is written can be read in different, equally valid ways. It's a pretty cool feature of language, actually - some might call it a bug, but I think whether it's a bug or feature depends on the context. The fact is, language is cool.

Is this RAI? Not a chance. (Which is really, really sad.)

It is an exploit, and one dependent on a GM's good will and their willingness to work with the player in question.

And that's not a bad thing. GMs that allow this aren't bad GMs. GMs that disallow this aren't bad GMs.

What that means is that I read it as both entirely valid or entirely not valid, dependent upon the GM in question. Both readings are correct, and that's something the GM is going to have to decide for themselves. But telling someone else that their reading is not correct is... well, not correct.

I'm sorry for the spirit the OP made this thread in. I'm glad the OP made the thread. These aren't contradictory - I like this premise, and am pleased that the OP created something that educated me, but I wish he'd had a better spirit about it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Which is fine by me.

(The GM working with the player, as noted in my post that he responded to, not the slumping bodies thing. That just sounds gross, tragic, and messy.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
... "realistic"? You... do realize we're playing mythic, right?
He means realistic as in the practical application of the ability.

... "practical"? You... do realize we're playing mythic, right?

;)

EDITED: slightly, for better parallelism.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That's pretty excellent, FenrisJohanson! Sounds like you're a pretty solid GM with a great game going on! I hope things go well, and you've gotta let us know what happens!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
andreww wrote:

Well yes obviously but if you are going to present it as a realistic choice then you are presumably going to assign it some sort of caster level, probably based on character level. At that point it becomes completely out of whack for anyone to take and is an auto pick for every single class in the game.

I should add that I don't think this works as either RAW or RAI, you have a caster level of --, have no way to determine DC and don't get to selectively read the section to remove the section on prepared versus spontaneous.

... "realistic"? You... do realize we're playing mythic, right?

There is nothing to base anything off of. The fighter has no CL. That translates into "--" whenever it appears anywhere else. Since this isn't an (Sp), but an (Su), there's no assigned CL. Any CL you apply is going to be entirely an artificial construct based on your interpretation of the "weight" of RAW. If you're going to interpret things as broken, of course they will be broken. I find nothing to indicate that an (Su) should have a CL of the character's hit dice. If you'd prefer, however, feel free to interpret that way, but, since you assert that it doesn't work in the first place, there's no reason to assert the CL works the way you say it does.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And doing it at a CL of --, which, in game-purposes, is always treated as 0-ing out, whenever it comes into play.

That means time stop (fighter isn't doing anything fightery with that), shapechang into huge dragons for 0 minutes (I suppose you could count it as half a minute, like 0-level spells count as half a spell level for various purposes?), and making a simulacra with a maximum of 0 hit dice.

... not really that impressed, so far, so what else you got?

EDIT: I mean, the time stop thing is impressive insomuch as it allows a fighter to self-buff with those spells, which is nice, I suppose. Although come to think of it, there are precious few buffs that don't rely on the caster level in some regard or another, so...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

See? Maturity! Like me! *snicker-snicker-snort!*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cuuniyevo wrote:
The Mythic Paths are suggested as being 'suitable' for specific types of characters, but there is no rule against picking an 'unsuitable' one, and it does in fact say that classes can find a different one useful.

This is actually a really, really salient point. I like it.

My Trickster fighter, Champion magus, Defender rogue, and Marshal paladin all function quite well, despite the classes not being "suitable" to those paths.

To be clear, I've never thought of the idea the OP suggested. To be more clear: I DON'T FIND IT RIDICULOUS, and, in fact, think it's a great idea for a martial to take as a mythic path.

Because, why not? I mean, sure, an arcane is limited through some method or another, but the martial is limited by effective caster level and a lack of casting stat.

This makes it a very interesting ability - in fact a great story ability -, but definitely no where near as powerful as a caster using it. It's broken, but still usable. Basically, what this means, is that the martial is going to be a great buffer (really useful for a martial), with the occasional ability to do really nifty things (like grant Inherent bonuses). The fact that the door is open to them doing whatever (though not necessarily doing so successfully) really makes them feel mythic. It means they have the capability to do great and interesting things, but despite their broad access, they just can't do it as well as their actual caster brethren who (barring Wild Arcana), are more limited in scope, but not in power.

The assertion that this is a ridiculous thing to do is incorrect at its core, and is one of the reasons the arguments on this thread are so baffling.

We. Are. Talking. About. Mythic.

These are characters that, if they select the correct path options, can be worshiped as gods, and produce definitive truth that they are, in fact, gods to be worshiped.

"Oh no! The god might actually cast a wish to grant an inherent score increase! T3h horrors!"

I faq'd it, knowing full well that Paizo will, at some point, get around to it and do the exact opposite of what I want (i.e. they are going to shut this down).

And I have to say, that makes me sad. This whole thing makes me sad.

This thread is filled with people I like and respect who due to - from what I can tell - pride, are going all "NO RAWR!" at the other. Even if it's not meant that way, it comes off as it.

And, let me be clear - I do not agree with all the "pro" arguments. Some are weak, at best.

Do I think it works RAW? Yeah, sure. But, for reasons that wraithstrike pointed out, it also can not work through RAW.

That which is written can be read in different, equally valid ways. It's a pretty cool feature of language, actually - some might call it a bug, but I think whether it's a bug or feature depends on the context. The fact is, language is cool.

Is this RAI? Not a chance. (Which is really, really sad.)

It is an exploit, and one dependent on a GM's good will and their willingness to work with the player in question.

And that's not a bad thing. GMs that allow this aren't bad GMs. GMs that disallow this aren't bad GMs.

If your point in being here is to prove that RAW is stupid (like the OP's was), than I'm disappointed. If your point in being here is to verbally shut down a pretty cool option that makes for an interesting character (I'm looking at you, Juju Oracle), than I'm disappointed. And both of you are making a good conversation about it difficult.

EDIT: or, you could say, for the levity...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Goblins: the stealthy murderers of unholy doom, by Ashiel.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

...

>.>

...

... I... I don't think...

Hrm. I've run that AP.

Look, don't... it's not... you... you're worrying about this the wrong way.

However: if it comes down to "letting someone roast unjustly forever" or "swift death and Pharasma's judgement" the latter is better, for the reasons I've outlined. Generally? I recommend you try to save them without killing them.

EDIT: flagged for incorrect subforum; you're fine (you didn't do something bad), but I'm letting you know the thread might be moved.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

*blink-blink*

That... is a surprising conclusion to come to.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What? Sorry, that's both hard to read, and hard to parse.

First, by "summoned" do you mean "created"?

If the bloody skeleton had resurrection cast on it while it was still a skeleton, nothing would happen.

If it was destroyed and then had resurrection cast on it, it would be restored to the life it had before hand with their normal traits before hand.

If you mean True Resurrection, than it would be restored to the life it had before hand with their normal traits before hand.

After that, if the belt of gender change is put on the person, they'd be gender-reversed. (Well, sex-reversed, but that's a different conversation altogether.) If the belt was put on first, when they're raised, they'd be as they were before, but the opposite sex.

Those are the "hard" rules.

If you want to be more creative, however, you could allow the ex-skeleton to come back with some semblance of their skeletal state. It could be quite interesting.

Could you perhaps clarify what you're looking for a bit?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Infernal Duke could be fun.

Diabolic (instead of demonic) version of Swallow Soul maybe.

Definitively, however, the popcorn of all fiends (the soul gem created by soul lock).

Feel free to base something off of that!

But... why would they kill the innocents instead of escaping? Please explain the scenario further.

If the options are "condemn them to the lower planes, or give their souls a chance with Pharasma" the latter is the better one; the problem, however, is I can't envision a situation in which the PCs would follow the latter course instead of die trying to prevent it.

EDIT: to clarify, killing them isn't good. At all. But they can be raised, later, unless Pharasma prevents it, for some reason. Whereas allowing them to be condemned condemns them to eternal torment. That is far worse than a merciful death with the possibility of raising later.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

???

Those... are some strange questions.

His agenda is "I'm a chaotic evil abyss-dwelling monstrosity focused on bats, blood, caverns, and nocturnal predators."

The priests that worship him are those to whom such things are interesting or important for whatever reason. They are, simply defined, the priests that worship him. If that seems tautological, that's because it is. But that's the same answer we can give you about any priest of any deity, outside of campaign-specifics which are up to the GM (or AP).

I mean, who would worship a goddess of gluttony, disease, and undeath? The priests who worship her (because her portfolio is of interest to them). That's Urgathoa.

This guy is bats, blood, caverns, and nocturnal predators. Anything that makes those things more important is something that pleases him, because it makes him more important. Anything that makes those things less important infuriates him because they make him less important by extension.

That's pretty much all you need to know.

If, on the other hand, you're looking for specific rivalries with other gods, or whatever, there doesn't seem to be anything like that.

He's not a demon lord, merely a minor god, but he lives in the Abyss... therefore, it's likely that he has bad relationships with some demon lords and dangerous but interesting relationships with others. Probably not friends with Lamashtu, but maybe a lover/spawner of children with her. Definitely not friends with the qlippoth - any of them. Fundamentally, the idea that he pulls souls of worshipers to himself puts him at direct opposition to what the qlippoth are about. He may hate or love Nocticula for killing Vyriavaxus. He probably hates Abraxus for "taking" the land of Black Blood from him.

His home realm. Beyond that, I don't think you're going to get many answers that you don't develop yourself.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That's great! Well done!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Here you go!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

:D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I just find it baffling that you don't get free proficiency with the weapon your archetype specifically is built to make you good at using.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Even the Swordlord Fighter archetype doesn't get free proficiency with it... :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
Obviously this is not RAI, and it certainly not something any sane GM would allow, but... Holy s+%$, is it amusing...

No one ever accused me of being 'sane'!

(Why would that be an accusation, anyway?)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

:/


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
Yeah. No need to remind us of gamer stigmata...

I... I think you mean "gamer stigma"...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Blakmane wrote:
Honestly, it's mythic rules anyway. Noone plays mythic rules because they want to see their characters struggle against adversity. I would probably even allow this in-game if a martial was in a party of all full casters.

Man... I'm just... it's like I don't exist...

Ipslore the Red wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
Honestly, it's mythic rules anyway. Noone plays mythic rules because they want to see their characters struggle against adversity. I would probably even allow this in-game if a martial was in a party of all full casters.
Peter Noone reporting in.

He speaks the language of my people!

Mathius wrote:

The problem is you still need to have min CL to cast the spell. The stone gets you all level 1 spells and a bead of karma plus the stone gets you 1 2 and 3. Might be able to squeak out 4th level spells some how but you are not getting the upper half of spells.

This only applies if you actually have CL 0 and not CL -.

I guess you could argue that CL part is only talking about lowering CL and you do whatever you want at your max level. CL 6 commune and CL 11 wish support you but are SLAs and not full spell casting.

One thing regarding "--" and comparing it to "0" - for purposes of animal companions (well vermin animal companions), at least, when you upgrade their ability scores, you can choose to increase their "-" to "1".

Thread that I just learned about!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

I just wanted to say "hi"... (I'm so lonely, no one knows me...)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Kared, you've made an excellent post with really insightful points, but two letters I'd adapt for higher accuracy...

Kared wrote:
That is not fun for many DMs.

... otherwise, carry on! Excellent points being made!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

(and maybe Marion County, FL)

Hello anyone in the area!

I just discovered this new place, tonight, on my way back from getting dinner for my family: Geek Out!

To be open about this, I've no idea if they're good or not, as I've not been there, but everything I've read on the Facebook page makes me exceedingly excited about it!

I don't know if I'll be able to attend the socials given my current lifestyle - I'm generally asleep by 6 or 7 so my wife can sleep from 12 to 6 - but as soon as we're able, I'd love to go there an hang out with any of you 'round town! I'm super excited that an actual geeky place exists in Ocala, and it sounds awesome!

God bless you, owners of G33k Out, for making a place that I've longed to exist for some time.

I don't know if you're new, or just entirely hidden for a while, but I, for one, am glad you exist!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I love your post Ckorik, but there are two things I wish to hedge on/slightly disagree with:

Ckorik wrote:
There should never be a 'god mode' at a tabletop RPG.

I think that having a 'god mode' is not inherently 'wrong' - in fact, I believe that whether a 'god mode' exists or is used or not entirely depends on the player(s), the GM, and the game and story they want to tell together. That said, for most people and most games, it's certainly true that a 'god mode' would ruin the story and experience for them.

For the second, while I agree that your assertion of how to GM is the 'best' way of doing things, I want to note only that sometimes GMs simply don't have the mental wherewithal to do that kind of adaptation. The best thing for any GM to do would be to roll with whatever the PCs come up with... on the other hand, pre-published adventures are extremely popular for a reason (and APs for that matter). That reason is that GMs are often really, really busy, and a bit too busy to really prep and go with a free-form adventure.

Point in fact, I'm usually pretty good with free-form adventures, or I have been in the past, but there are times when I just can't do it, despite my deep knowledge of the system and usual ability to wing it, simply because I'm tired, distracted, have a lot of other life-stress, or something else.

These things crush spontaneity pretty thoroughly.

The best GMing is that which allows the PCs to do anything or go anywhere, no matter how off-the-rails it goes.

The more common and solid GMing is "here is a large area - feel free to play in it, but if you go too far, I'm simply not going to be able to handle it" - and this second one covers a vast panapoly of games and styles. It can be a more "rail-ish" style (where the GM uses the environs to self-correct the problem or put the PCs back on track somehow) or a more sandbox... but there is usually some sort of leeway in all of them.

The problem area is usually (again, depending on the group) when the rails become too obvious and thus unfun.

The major problem arises when people lack the words to say these kinds of things themselves, or lack the self-insight to understand what they think or feel or what they're aiming for. Communication and personal honesty is key, but it's not as easy as sitting down to talk with people, unfortunately.

And, uh, otherwise, that's a great post. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Heh. That kind of thinking is so perfect for a 16th level wizard to use later. *happy sigh*


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That seems exceptionally easy when compared to, say, the Awaken spell (and it's related variants in 3.5).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ah. I see you're set in refusing to see it's utility and logic because it inconveniences your play-style - a completely understandable stance, especially as a player wherein most things revolve around your character idea instead of the campaign as a whole. I apologize for entering into a dialogue where discourse other than agreement is clearly unwanted. I do hope your game goes smoothly, however, and I do hope you find peace and enjoyment in a roll other than as the GM in some games.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'd come to a similar conclusion about the relative "timeline" of Pathfinder, at least as it relates to Hell.

It's an imperfect analogy, however, as, for example, Obyriths don't exist - though they have a decent analogy in the qlippoths, the maelstrom doesn't quite line up well with the astral (deep or otherwise) of 3.X's Great Wheel, and there are a few other "synching" issues (including the shape of the out planes!), but yeah, it's a fair analogy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
If you use up the astral projection of a cancle, you use up the real candle as well. What you do is not replicate but essentially extend the dimensional existence of a single object. if you lose or use up the astral projection of said object, the real one will be gone as well.

... is a perfectly fine and valid interpretation, but is only that: one interpretation.

the spell wrote:
You project your astral self onto the Astral Plane, leaving your physical body behind on the Material Plane in a state of suspended animation. The spell projects an astral copy of you and all you wear or carry onto the Astral Plane. Since the Astral Plane touches upon other planes, you can travel astrally to any of these other planes as you will. To enter one, you leave the Astral Plane, forming a new physical body (and equipment) on the plane of existence you have chosen to enter.

"Projects a copy" and "forms a new" does not seem to support that interpretation, however, by plain-text English.

I mean, if I have a copy of The Incredibles DVD, that does nothing to your copy of The Incredibles DVD, because mine is just that: a copy. Or, even better, if I illegally copy my copy, I've now got two copies. Whatever happens to the second, notably newly-formed copy does not affect the first.

Now, this doesn't hold perfectly true - clearly, there is some connection between original and new form, due to the fact that the new form is effectively temporary, if lasting:

the spell wrote:
When this spell ends, your astral body and all of its gear, vanishes.

Of note is the term "its" in "its gear" (as opposed to "your gear").

Also proving they're connected is the death of your projected body grants your living body 2 negative levels, and the severing of the cord at all kills everything.

Thus it's impossible to say that they're truly disconnected, but the implication is that brand new equipment is created for use by the person casting the spell.

Of course that's up for GM interpretation, however, which is why I mentioned...

me wrote:
GM says it doesn't work that way (arbitrary, but entirely sensible on his or her part)? Really not a problem - there are a whole host of ways to use said systems to your advantage.

So, you know, that was acknowledged in said post. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
felinoel wrote:
Except... it IS a weird house rule...?

Clarification: no, it is a house-rule, not a weird house-rule. There is a difference.

For example, what is simpler?

Ban: alchemical allocation, which causes problems (as I know from experience)

Ban: shadow walk elixir, and possibly (but not definitively) any other elixir, potion, or other item that, for reasons that I may or may not be able to guess at now, might cause problems later on

The obvious answer is number one is simpler. Number two is a weird house-rule because it needs a lot fiddly responses on a case-by-case basis, and has no internal or external consistency except "does this break the game at this particular moment?" which will vastly vary from game to game. On the other hand, number one solves the same problems as number two, but also allows the GM the greater flexibility to grant (or not) various published elements that his players like with greater confidence that infinite loops (which are what the actual problem is) don't arise.

On infinite loops: oh, there are tons of these, by the way. They are ludicrously easy to create, and most of them are easily built using just the Core rulebook or, earlier than that, just the Player's Handbook from the 3.5 game. They can easily disrupt games in ways that GMs can't always foresee.

I say that to say this: he banned alchemical allocation because it created an infinite loop that also bypassed parts of the adventure. My recommendation, if you want to continue to play the game and not have him ban things is to temper your own use. In-character, create an excuse. Perhaps it's "unstable" and would likely "cause problems" if used too many times in rapid succession or something. I dunno, check out primal magic effects tables or the rod of wonder, presume it's aimed at you, and have your character not want to undergo those potentially terrible effects.

As a comparative note, a "Mr. Hyde" type build would see tremendous amounts of more utility from alchemical allocation than a "bomber" build. Way more. Because the "Mr. Hyde" build would need a ton of different buffs to consistently ready themselves for just about anything, and having a host of potions on-hand would be insanely useful - he could simply prepare the one formula repeatedly and hold onto the different potions to gain their benefits.

Regardless, what he's actually saying isn't that "my build is worse than your build" but rather "it doesn't work in my game with my play style" whether he realizes that or not. It's your job, as a player, to decide if you still want to play with him, given that playstyle/expectation clash. If you wish to continue to play, control yourself, and keep your own character in check. You'll have less problems with the GM that way, I think.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:


Astral Projection is a spell that allows a wizard to project a fake body onto a new plane (with copies of his loot!), and gets better instantly when he "dies". With any variant of create demiplane and permanency, the wizard can easily gain effective immortality (and limitless wealth).

How does astral projection/demiplane give one limitless wealth?

As a single example (there are many), start with a candle of invocation - the alignment doesn't matter, but make sure you're willing to deal with the consequences.

Create a demiplane, use astral projection from there to enter a different plane of existence and gain functional replicas of all of your equipment, use your new replicated candle to summon a creature from yet another plane of existence, and use their wish power to fabricate (or, if pushy, true creation) things into existence. Dismiss your astral projection and repeat ad nauseam.

It must be stressed that this is but a singular way of doing so. I mean, just look at the create demiplane spell.

Heck, if naught else, you can astral project with all of your current wealth, use up your replicated whatevers, dismiss the astral projection, and do it again.

GM says it doesn't work that way (arbitrary, but entirely sensible on his or her part)? Really not a problem - there are a whole host of ways to use said systems to your advantage.

Whether something as simple as manipulating the Time and Bountiful traits - perhaps, if you're really ambitious and knowledgeable, with the Seasonal traits - to create comparatively vast crop-yields; doubling your crafting time; or pulling substantially more advanced tricks with the Timeless trait; demiplane + astral projection functions to create tremendous options for generating wealth.

Strictly speaking, having your own demiplane isn't necessary - it's just exceedingly convenient and useful.

A favorite trick I developed a while back: one scroll of permanency and plane shift, two of create demiplane and three astral projection. Create a demiplane. Project back onto the material plane. Create a new demiplane with your replicated equipment. Make it permanent. Return to your original body down only a use of create demiplane and astral projection. From there shift to your new and permanent plane, and then start an extended loop of demiplane creation to multiply your resources by quite a large margin. (Note: I'm going off of memory for this one - you may need a few more astral projection or other effects, and you might need to have a slightly different "path" to maximize your uses, but that's the gist of it.)

I'm pretty sure that elsewhere on these boards there are lots of explanations more detailed than I've got here.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gallyck wrote:
On another note. He didnt have much gear on him. Backroom he had his workshop and had a +2 headband. In retrospect i think he didnt wanna give us 16th level loot. He was kinda in a hard place there.

I covered why this might be here and, truth to tell, I'm more convinced than ever that I'm correct. You found chump loot because the clone (and spellbook) were basically expendable for the wizard.

Incidentally, for the record, clone is an 8th level spell that allows a wizard to "get better" when he dies by waking up in his clone body after the one he's currently in dies. He wakes up at two negative levels (trivial to negate at 16th level) sans all gear that was on his previous body.

Simulacrum is a spell that creates a half-level duplicate of the original. With liberal use of Share Memory (after the fact), it's kind of like being there yourself... sort of!

Astral Projection is a spell that allows a wizard to project a fake body onto a new plane (with copies of his loot!), and gets better instantly when he "dies". With any variant of create demiplane and permanency, the wizard can easily gain effective immortality (and limitless wealth).

I mention that because, based on the wording, it kind of sounds like people are treating the wizard that died akin to a simulacra - an active, weaker subservient-body to an independent alternate body currently active elsewhere. And this may well be the case! I just wanted to make sure we all knew what we were talking about, however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mackenzie Kavanaugh wrote:
And breaking the game is the only reason players ask for stuff from outside sources.

When combined with thejeff's point, this quote right here explains a loooooooooooooooooooot of the disconnect between what you've been saying and what seems clear to me.

It is simply untrue that "breaking the game" is the end goal for players asking for things.

The 3.5 game is part of the official line of pathfinder stuff - the APs didn't get auto-rebooted when PF switched from being 3.5-based to PF-based. They are, unless updated (as Rise of the Runelords was) generally considered both canonical and entirely compatible.

Heck, the tagline upon which PF was originally sold was "3.5 Lives THRIVES!" which, you know, is pretty indicative that Pathfinder was, at least originally, considered synonymous with 3.5 by the very people who made Pathfinder. Drawing exceedingly sharp distinctions between the two doesn't really work that well for a multitude of reasons.

The fact is, anything with enough options is likely to have elements that clash.

Blood Money, as an example, exists, and was updated into modern PF from the original 3.5 in it's full, broken glory. Hence, even if the AP was updated to 3.5, regardless of the interaction with alchemical allocation, to all appearances, we have, in our hands, evidence that, barring specific statements or evidence to the contrary, it's entirely reasonable in PF that an alchemist could expect access to the elixir that caused this whole thing. I mean, it's effectively already happened once.

That's why I can find it reasonable that the GM ban one thing that definitively could cause problems - the formula - rather than potentially a large number of things that might cause problems that are still official Paizo products.

Mackenzie Kavanaugh wrote:
This wasn't the first time OP had used alchemical allocation, as OP has stated that it had previously been used for flight, so the GM would have been aware of the spell, what it was used for, and that it meant being able to re-use potions. It is entirely possible that OP was deceptive and failed to inform the GM that the text for alchemical allocation allowed it to be used with elixirs as well as potions, and therefore the GM didn't know that this elixir would be used in combination with it to grant the use of a 6th level spell via a 2nd level spell. However, that's still only a reason to ban the elixir or rule that alchemical allocation doesn't work with the elixir.

This is decent logic, but it's flaw lies in the fact that it presumes several things:

- that the GM was entirely okay with alchemical allocation the whole time; he possibly was not, as it caused some problems, but not "enough" - whatever that critical mass was
- that the player was deceptive, and the GM wasn't distracted or automatically presumed everyone seeks to break the game with everything they request; the player could have been entirely straightforward and a good GM may still have made the same mistake while being distracted... or simply not thinking of that player breaking the game
- that the GM didn't think about the consequences and banned the "wrong" thing; it's quite possible that said GM, after the issues that arose currently, took a look at what the future held and either decided that alchemical allocation would cause problems, or that alchemical allocation was more likely to cause problems (due to messing with wealth) than a single elixir (which would cost money each time)

The thing is, as I said, it's not the conclusion I would come to, but it's a valid one in the GMing world at large (just not the only valid one).

I've allowed people to "break" my game before, and even slightly encouraged it... it was fun to watch them get themselves into ever-greater trouble as they presumed they'd found ways to abuse the system that others had never thought of. I've also allowed people to "get away with it" before. I've twice asked a player to change what they were going to do - once because I literally couldn't conceive of how to progress the campaign, and once because the player was going to get themselves killed and/or shatter the game for the other players. I've never exactly banned things, but I thrice warned players of mine that if they did <X>, it would cause their character to either die or be entirely negated for a time (two out of three of the players decided to to <X> anyway, and, for reasons that still baffle me, were entirely shocked when it went exactly the way I told them it would happen before they ever put pencil to paper, and reminded them of while they were creating said character and in the intervening time since. I've once told a player that their actions were negated and dropped them from the game at the same time.

As a player, I've broken a few games, voluntarily undergone a nerf (suggested by me, or the GM) for the sake of a few others, and both accidentally and purposefully been over-, under-, or median-powered either compared to the GMs game or other players (though most of the time, I ignore any sort of power level and go for "this is what I want to be able to do" instead, often tending toward higher power spectrum while still following the flow of the story - and usually that's the basis of what I ask for, regardless of source).

The point of all this? Different GMs handle different things differently, based on their own current abilities, insight, and ideas. Ultimately, alchemical allocation, in the GMs mind, at least, seems to be the source of the trouble, hence it was banned instead of the elixir.

One of the more fascinating things - and one of the things that prevents us from coming to a conclusion about the GM - is that the GM may or may not have made any of these decisions or insights consciously. It's quite possible it just "felt right" and whatever reasons are entirely subconscious, whether the ones I've come up with, or their own. People are complex. That's why I'm against assigning motives or saying "he obviously should have <Y>!" because I'm not aware of the full situation, and it makes it kind of difficult to know why he did what he did.

(For the record, I find the elixir less potentially-problematic than the formula, even though I'd likely not ban the formula. A one-use spell-effect isn't really a big deal, regardless of its format. Making one-use spell-effects into effectively limitless-use spell-effects can easily cause issues.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:

@Tacticslion

It is my opinion that when you ban something serious that a player uses in his build you should offer a free and complete rebuild to use if he wants.

I don't know how anyone could get the conclusion that I do not ascribe to the same idea from my post; if it's not clear, I support the idea, for the most part. Hence,

me wrote:
As a corollary, I would recommend, if possible, the GM toss the PC that lost the ability some kind of bone**...

... which is what that means. The follow-up,

still me wrote:
** As a further corollary, Weirdo's post sums up the entirety of my... "iffyness" on this whole thing. Whether or not the player is intentionally being disruptive, they are being disruptive to the game. The GM obviously - for whatever reason - can't handle or doesn't think they can handle the use of those effects together in that way. Thus, they'd have to be exceedingly careful about permitting the PC in question anything new in exchange. This can lead to the PC feeling shortchanged and trying to eke out greater advantages, which causes the GM to feel justifiably overwhelmed... and so on. It's a vicious cycle.

Explains my hesitation: in this case, it feels like the relationship between GM and player is... not one of trust. That means that the GM is likely hesitant to allow a complete rebuild without vetting it first, and fully and properly vetting things likely takes time that, from the OP's description, I'm not sure the GM has.

My recommendation would simply be to allow the alchemist to take a different extract or two. As Weirdo pointed out, there are a ton of useful extracts at that level. And it hardly seems like the alchemist relied on the single trick.

If he did, however, yes, he needs to allow a rebuild, because he invalidated an entire concept.

Personally, I'd try to allow a story element to the whole thing, but, then again, I'm not that GM or player. And I don't know how the player would take to a rebuild, thus just unilaterally noting "full rebuild, go!" could make it more awkward than it needs to be.

Effectively, whether or not a "full" rebuild should even be on the table varies from group to group - some see that as necessary, others see that as excessive. Whether or not that is the option would depend on the players.

leo1925 wrote:
I kinda understand the DM's decision to ban alchemical allocation, it might seem to him that it's too much hassle to house rule an uncertain number of interactions between alchemical allocation and other things and it seems that much easier to ban it completely. I would have tried to come up with a way to alter it before i ban it completely but i think understand his decision.

This, in a nutshell, is the opinion I hold as well. Frankly, banning is not something I tend to do. It's not something I usually have to do, because, in the end, I can mostly roll with what the players bring up, or the players (whoever they are) self-regulate.

That said, I can entirely see the GM's decision-making process.

Weirdo already covered this:

Weirdo wrote:
Banning Alchemical Allocation entirely seems like an extreme reaction, but I can't help but wonder if it's a result of frustration with how you have approached the game. Your reaction to a possible ban on the Elixir of Shadewalking was "I'll just get a Potion of Dimension Door instead," which completely ignores the fact that your GM's main problem with the Elixir was getting access to a high-level spell at low levels - a problem which would still apply with Dimension Door.

... this is easily a rational basis for the decision. "Player created [problem] with elements A and B; if I remove element B, [problem] will still occur with elements C, D, or E. Thus, I remove element A."

This is entirely rational. Not my style of gaming or GMing, at all, but entirely understandable.

This is even more true if the GM is rushed, has a heavy life-schedule (which, given the OP's assertion that getting a meeting with said GM is difficult, seems likely), or is otherwise strongly distracted.

Mackenzie Kavanaugh wrote:
And... yes, even a 5-year-old would expect that a player who has been using a spell to make use of potions without expending them will continue doing so if given even more powerful potions. This whole thread really boils down to one question: "What exactly was the GM expecting would happen when they approved the elixir into the game?"

You are being both disingenuous and hyperbolic, while showing it with a straight face. No.

What did the GM expect? The GM expected them to use the elixir - once - and be done. Hence the now-banning of alchemical allocation. I mean, c'mon. Even a five-year-old can see that. (That turn of phrase is, by the way, meant in humor.)

Mackenzie Kavanaugh wrote:
Clearly there was some sort of disconnect between the expectations of the GM and what actually happened, but what happened is exactly what should have been expected.

In a perfect world, sure. Purposefully or not, you don't seem to be acknowledging that the GM might not have everything his or her players can possibly do in mind before allowing certain things... and that comes off as both exceedingly arrogant and bespeaks of very little empathy, at least in this case.

The fact is the GM made a mistake, yes.

The GM took the route they took in order to fix that mistake. Whether or not it is the route you or I would have taken doesn't mean it's the wrong reaction. It just means that it's the one they took.

Disparaging a person we've not even heard speak for a decision that could have a reasonable basis (whether or not it actually does) by noting the childishness of their oversight (which, in fact, is not childish, all things considered) is simply the wrong way to go about it.

For the record, I don't think the OP 'abused' anything. That doesn't mean the GM was incorrect in their response. I'd want to hear more from both sides before making that decision, and, in the end, I hope they all have a good gaming experience.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Glibness is actually "only" +20 now, I'm afraid. Otherwise, pretty neat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DominusMegadeus wrote:
No one is saying your character wouldn't act like that. A power hungry evil caster would gank people for spellbooks, why not? We're just saying he deserves whatever your DM does about it.

I want to expand on this juuuuuuuuuuuuuust a tad.

I don't have any problem with you, as a player, having pulled this off. Great! Good job!

That said? Your character is evil and murdered a guy just to gain access to his spell-book. If the character bites it, that doesn't actually bother me, just because your character is evil and murdered a guy to gain access to his spell-book. That's it. Not judging the player, but very much so judging the character.

In any event, even if the caster had a back-up body, clone comes with a few disadvantages that need to be offset later.

No, the more I read, the more I'm convinced the wizard allowed this to happen*.

I think that your best bet is to own up to your mistake, and attempt restitution for what you did. Perhaps, say, by crafting things for the wizard, and surreptitiously dropping them off? I dunno how. Research the guy. Learn about what he liked. And feed him that.

The wizard may have been in hiding, or he may have just been retired. Either way, he wasn't a good guy: you 5th level rubes saved his town. He was a 16th level wizard in said town. He obviously didn't care much about "his" town... or he's running a different game altogether.

I think he's watching you to see what you do with it, though perhaps indirectly (or perhaps not). Perhaps the 'test' of proving your worth was, in fact, seeing if you'd murder for it. Perhaps now he's satisfied, and is delighting in setting someone else down an evil path. Perhaps he's watching to see if you become great... "on the backs of giants" so to speak. Perhaps he's allowed you to kill him, acquire his stuff, and then stew nervously in your own evil juices until you vow to use his power for good, just as he'd planned all along.

Either way, bare this in mind: that's not his spellbook. I absolutely guarantee it.

That is one of his backup spellbooks**.

You didn't find a ton of uber-loot on the guy's corpse. 16th level wizard, sans uber-loot? No. No, that back-up spell book had clone in it on purpose. He was letting you know what he could do, and who he is. And, bear in mind, if the highest level spell in the book is 8th level/clone... that doesn't mean that said spell level is the highest he can cast. It just means that's the highest he had in that book.

Incidentally, did you at least loot the place of scrolls when you left? 'Cause if not... heh, whoops.

* The more I'm convinced "as a GM, after the fact" - i.e., I don't know, but I kind of suspect the GM didn't have stats fully ready, but didn't need them, and rolled with things really well, to establish a solid story.

** I don't make a wizard without multiple books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You know, Mackenzie, the GM's mistake is just that: a mistake. That does not make them a bad GM, ignorant, poorly thought-out, or anything like that.

And you're last line in the hypothetical PC/GM convo is... well, it's quite frankly terrible. No, a 5-year-old could not have expected the PC to do that.

The fact is, the player and the GM simply have different expectations. Different ways of handling things, different ideas about how the game should be played, and different thresholds for what they can (and should) be and have in their game.

The GM made their call. It's not one I like, personally, but it's not a bad call. It's simply a call - and the one that GM can handle right now.

The OP has stated that the GM is hard to get a hold of for conversation.

Consider this: the GM is a busy person, their life has a lot going on, and they are setting up and running a game for their friends to play. Given that scenario, it's unreasonable for any GM to be expected to think out the ramifications of allowing something in, or even of thinking ahead to extrapolate all of their various players' abilities.

I'm not saying the OP was wrong to use what was allowed. I'm not saying the GM banning things was the right decision.

I am saying that the OP using what he did how he did clashes with the GM's style of play, and the GM made a reasonable (if, to my preferences* overly-strong) call to ban what he sees as a potential problem area in the game.

This makes sense. This is exactly what a GM is for.

This is even the advice given in the DMG GMG - own up to a mistake, explain the situation, and remove the offending content when stuff breaks your game too badly. (As a corollary, I would recommend, if possible, the GM toss the PC that lost the ability some kind of bone**...)

Regardless, the ultimate thing is to just accept the ruling and move on. Have a fun game anyway, and work with the GM as much as possible. If you find you can't play the game, inform the table, and - very, very, very respectfully and graciously - bow out, bearing no ill-will toward anyone there.

For the original question, I wouldn't consider it an abuse. I don't even consider it broken. I can still understand why a busy GM might not be able to handle everything, though.

* But my preferences don't amount to a hill of beans at their table.

** As a further corollary, Weirdo's post sums up the entirety of my... "iffyness" on this whole thing. Whether or not the player is intentionally being disruptive, they are being disruptive to the game. The GM obviously - for whatever reason - can't handle or doesn't think they can handle the use of those effects together in that way. Thus, they'd have to be exceedingly careful about permitting the PC in question anything new in exchange. This can lead to the PC feeling shortchanged and trying to eke out greater advantages, which causes the GM to feel justifiably overwhelmed... and so on. It's a vicious cycle.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Eh, while I don't like the idea, I can entirely see the GM's response, here. He doesn't want to come up with weird house rules with uncertain results down the line, and, frankly, from his perspective, it's probably just easier to ban it (and the arguments it may or may not cause) then to worry about fiddly half-measures or trying to figure out balance for it on the fly.

I do agree that it's a bit too strong of a reaction... but it's a sane one, and it makes sense from a lot of different perspectives, and is an attempt by the GM to keep the campaign rolling, while moving the game forward. That's what GMs do.

I am sorry for the weakening of your character, though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Every adventuring wizard*: "It could always have more explosive runes."

* (According to certain posters.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Nope! Me too!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Uwotm8 wrote:
The Paizo forums: sucking the wonder out of the Pathfinder fantasy game since 2008.

Not really - or rather, only if you let it do so. Funny line, though! :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Tangent101, you mean me?:
Tangent101 wrote:
Edit: Also, considering the thread says "Spoilers" and the FIRST sentence of the FIRST post warns of spoilers? Anyone who comes into here should not expect everything hidden behind Spoiler tags. That's just being plain silly now.

Oh heck yeah. No, I'm aware now, and I'm definitely not complaining, if this is in response to me. Heh. I'm pretty sure I just saw "Androffa" and went "Ooh! What's that?" and clicked. I've had the tab open for a while now, and only recently finished reading, mostly while I had a crying baby in my arms. No complaints, mostly commenting on my realization. :)

SEMI-EDIT: actually, now I remember how I got here: I was looking for a post by Mr. James Jacobs, when I found something about the systems and checked it out instead of whatever it was I was searching for previously. Oh, ADD, how you get to me. :D

I'm here for the lore. It's so cool!

Unrelated: I wonder if the Androffans (or the 'Droffans, I guess?) actually made any Kaiju as well? Being a land of super-science, it seems rife for exactly that kind of thing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My point exactly. :)

1 to 50 of 7,009 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.