|
And more to the point, if this was about fixing the game for you, you would be arguing that it needs to be clarified to not allow your reading, not arguing that it does allow it.
That is the thing that always gets me in these discussion. The person who has "discovered" the broken exploit who fights tooth and nail to keep it broken...
Why, if there are multiple ways to read something, would you insist the broken way is the correct way?
Because it can't begin to get fixed, until the developers can read it objectively, and admit that, yes, despite their intent, despite their interpretation of what was written, the text does actually say what it actually says.
Yes, but when you go to court and say "Well technically it says..."
Good luck with that. I know it looks good on TV, but in actual court, judges read for intent.
So do good GMs.
If you took the cited speed case to court, the just would throw it out as ridiculous.
As SKR points out, it doesn't say dead players can't take actions.
But we all seem to muddle through.
EDIT:
Let us look at it your way. Let us say I wanted to kill someone. So I am reading the Murder law and it said I can't kill anyone. So I created an elaborate machine that was triggered by the person opening the door.
If I go to court and say "Well technically it was suicide." how is that going to work out for me?
And more to the point, if this was about fixing the game for you, you would be arguing that it needs to be clarified to not allow your reading, not arguing that it does allow it.
That is the thing that always gets me in these discussion. The person who has "discovered" the broken exploit who fights tooth and nail to keep it broken...
Why, if there are multiple ways to read something, would you insist the broken way is the correct way?
Because it can't begin to get fixed, until the developers can read it objectively, and admit that, yes, despite their intent, despite their interpretation of what was written, the text does actually say what it actually says.
As SKR points out, it doesn't say dead players can't take actions.
.
it's not the same. There's no rule that say you can't take actions dead, but there's no rule that says you CAN take actions dead either. Compare that to the examples given, where there ARE rules that allow you to cast unlimited wishes for no gold or that allow you to build an army of simulacrum pitfiends, or that allow you to stop all incoming damage with an inmediate actionvwith energency sphere, or that allow you to write 1001 explosive runes in a book, and then detonate them with a missed dispel magic, or he rule that allow you to insta-win any fight against non-flying creatures with earth to mud ans acid fog.
Those aren't using actions not covered by tge rules (like acting being dead). They use actions covered by the rules, explicitly.|
|
So back to my "suicide murder" example.
Let us look at it your way. Let us say I wanted to kill someone. So I am reading the Murder law and it said I can't kill anyone. So I created an elaborate machine that was triggered by the person opening the door.
If I go to court and say "Well technically it was suicide." how is that going to work out for me?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So back to my "suicide murder" example.
Let us look at it your way. Let us say I wanted to kill someone. So I am reading the Murder law and it said I can't kill anyone. So I created an elaborate machine that was triggered by the person opening the door.
If I go to court and say "Well technically it was suicide." how is that going to work out for me?
that's why murder law doesn't just say "you can't kill anyone"
|
|
it's not the same. There's no rule that say you can't take actions dead, but there's no rule that says you CAN take actions dead either. Compare that to the examples given, where there ARE rules that allow you to cast unlimited wishes for no gold or that allow you to build an army of simulacrum pitfiends, or that allow you to stop all incoming damage with an inmediate actionvwith energency sphere, or that allow you to write 1001 explosive runes in a book, and then detonate them with a missed dispel magic, or he rule that allow you to insta-win any fight against non-flying creatures with earth to mud ans acid fog.
Those aren't using actions not covered by tge rules (like acting being dead). They use actions covered by the rules, explicitly.
No, there are ways of reading the rules that say you can do those things, just as there are ways of reading the scenario I posted above as suicide rather than murder.
They are based on assumptions not outlined in the rules.
Are there problem spells and abilities? Yes. I've written entire threads condemning persistent metamagic and metamagic rods in general. In this thread I've agreed EFS and Paragon Surge are poorly written and broken. And in your build I agree that they should look at the mithral shield stuff, as well as possibly how defending weapons work with casters.
I am not in the "there are no problems" camp.
At the same time, reading exploits into spells because technically it could be read that way when clearly it wasn't isn't the same thing. Explosive runes as a spell is clearly written to be it blows up if you read it and you can also be hurt if you are within 10 feet.
Blood Money clearly works on spells that can be fully cast in the same round as the swift action it takes to cast it.
It wasn't suicide when the guy opened the door. I would be guilty of murder in any reasonable court of law.
|
|
that's why murder law doesn't just say "you can't kill anyone"So back to my "suicide murder" example.
Let us look at it your way. Let us say I wanted to kill someone. So I am reading the Murder law and it said I can't kill anyone. So I created an elaborate machine that was triggered by the person opening the door.
If I go to court and say "Well technically it was suicide." how is that going to work out for me?
Actually.
"A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person."
With lots of other stuff about specific penalties for types of people you kill and exceptional circumstances that effect sentencing, and circumstances where it was not murder (but could be another crime), even if it meets the above definition.
So again, if I go to court and say "Technically he caused his own death by opening the door..." how is that going to work out for me?
What most people who don't work in courts don't realize is that laws are actually written to be open to interpretation by the judge, because writing it too narrowly causes even more problems.
See the Zimmerman trial...
Sure, some things are clearly exploita. Trying to use blood money for simulacrum is an example of such exploit.
However, using simulacrum to get free wishes is not. It's cheesy? Yes. Does it go against the gentlemen agreement? Sure. So does driving at 49.9 mph in a 50mph road tgat everybody in the county uses as a 40mph road because ten years ago a girl died there in a crash.
If I use a DC 44 persistent feeble mind vs the enemy caster i'm not reading the rules wromg. If I instantly wib an encounter against land based monsters wwuth reverse gravity or earth to mid, no save, I am using tge spekks exactly RAI. If I bypass tge need of perception rolls to find secret doors with a spell, I'm doing it with a spell built for tgat. When I solve the mystery with Visions, I'm using visions as intended.
I know US law follow the Common Law principles. In Europe we follow Civil Law principles. In my country, the "but it was a suicide" is not only covered by rules... it is actually punushed harder ("alevosia", or treachery, makes the punishment harder) Under Civil Law, I think Zimmerman would be playing cards with OJ Simpson right now ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, some things are clearly exploita. Trying to use blood money for simulacrum is an example of such exploit.
However, using simulacrum to get free wishes is not. It's cheesy? Yes. Does it go against the gentlemen agreement? Sure. So does driving at 49.9 mph in a 50mph road tgat everybody in the county uses as a 40mph road because ten years ago a girl died there in a crash.
If I use a DC 44 persistent feeble mind vs the enemy caster i'm not reading the rules wromg. If I instantly wib an encounter against land based monsters wwuth reverse gravity or earth to mid, no save, I am using tge spekks exactly RAI. If I bypass tge need of perception rolls to find secret doors with a spell, I'm doing it with a spell built for tgat. When I solve the mystery with Visions, I'm using visions as intended.
Except Simulacrum doesn't say you get full spell access for half of the HD. That is something you need to read into the spell for that to work, and you can't have that without GM permission. It doesn't say you get wish if you create an efrit, and it is a perfectly dependable and reasonable position to take that 1/2 HD efrit wouldn't get it's highest level spell since it only gets special abilities for a creature of half of it's "level".
I personally think it would be harder to argue that that they do get it.
With persistent I agree, and I've said that should be addressed. With the others they are effective in specific encounters and not useful at all in others, meaning you could be wasting the spell slot having that spell at a given time.
There is a wide margin between "This spell/ability is a problem" and "One can creatively read problems into this spell."
You and Andreww are, IMHO, pointing out problem spells and abilities. That is helpful and productive.
Others in the thread are trying to claim suicide in a murder.
Because it can't begin to get fixed, until the developers can read it objectively, and admit that, yes, despite their intent, despite their interpretation of what was written, the text does actually say what it actually says.
"Do you know why I pulled you over, sir?"
"No, officer, was my driving at fault?"
"Do you know what the speed limit is on this stretch of road?"
"Well, the sign says 50, and I was going below that, I'm sure."
"I clocked you going at 48. You can see the footage if you like."
"o-0? But, officer, if the sign says 50, and I was going at 48, then how is that a problem?"
"Because the sign may say 50, but what it's actually meant to say was 40. Any reasonable person knows that this road works far better as a 40 zone than a 50. Everyone in this town is under a gentleman's agreement to treat this road as a 40 zone. You'd know that, if you were signed up to the local town planning forums. It's buried in an FAQ from 2009, on page 25 of 61. I'm going to have to ticket you."
"That's insane! I'm passing through. I can't be expected to camp out on the town planning forums of every road I might ever drive down. Why don't you replace the sign, with one that shows the correct rule?"
"Oh, so we got a troublemaker, huh? Well, I don't know how they do things in your town, buddy, but here, our officers have some backbone. We find 90-95% of our problems go away, when we do that." <cracks knuckles>
Ugh. I've actually met cops like that.
"Because the sign may say 50, but what it's actually meant to say was 40.
The sad thing is that this actually happened to me IRL. Buffalo, Texas. Direct quotes:
My Passenger: "Good thing you slowed down to 55! They're pulling someone over!"
Me: "Um, they're pulling ME over."
Officer: "I clocked you goin' 54 in a 45 zone."
Me: "Officer, I don't mean to contradict you, but the sign's right there, and it says 55."
Officer: "Well, I'm tellin' you it's FORTY-five now, boy."
I was 150 miles from home, with a rental sticker on the vehicle -- he knew I wasn't going all the way back out there to contest the ticket.
And if I did? Sure, I'd win the case, unless the judge was the officer's cousin (highly likely). And there would be nothing stopping the same guy from knocking out my taillights on the way out of the courthouse...
DM fiat sucks.
Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception check (opposed by the caster's Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.
At all times, the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner. A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness. A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum.
You get the creatures special abilities. This includes spell like abilities, so it would include wish.
However it then adds "for a creature of that level or HD" - leaving it up to the GM to decide what SLA are appropriate. Thus, if your player is breaking Simulacrum, I argue that as a GM you are letting them.|
|
But again, you are giving an example that is not ambiguous or up for discussion.
If your attack bonus is 10 and I say it is 5, that isn't debatable. I am wrong, there is no grey area.
If you say the material component is consumed before the spell is cast, that is completely debatable.
What Andreww and Gustavo have shown are problems that aren't really debatable. EFS is a problem spell. Paragon Surge is a problem spell.
Blood Money Rune Tin Foil hat, etc, require you to read assumptions into the spell. Technically he turned the door knob, so he killed himself. I didn't kill him, the gun did...etc, etc...
|
|
Also, as someone who works with Police Officers...most of the stories (and worse) are probably true. Which is sad, because a lot of officers are awesome. But it only takes a few jackasses...
One group used to engage in something they called "jump and thump" in bad neighborhoods...power placed in the wrong hands will always corrupt. Which is why you need to always be careful who you give power to.
We're discussing what makes a "god wizard" and people are worried about mithral shields? (Cries)
|
|
At this point do we have consensus that and Paragon Surge, Emergency Force Sphere are borked?I would say so although the second Oracle posted above is using neither.
The saves are absurdly good. I worry about early level utility. Obviously it is a beast at 20th level, but what level would you say it hits it's stride?
+5 Mithral Spiked Buckler (+5 defending spike)And in your build I agree that they should look at the mithral shield stuff, as well as possibly how defending weapons work with casters.I don't think the mithral defending buckler would work, RAW. There was a FAQ posted a while back stating that to get the defending bonus for a weapon (or, indeed, any special bonus from any weapon enchantment) you have to have attacked with it on that turn.
If you have to attack with the duelist (+4 initative) weappn enchant before you get it, it is the worst weapon enchant ever
IF they change the wording, nice. Probably should be adressed. But the current wording EXPLICITLY says you get the bonus at the begining of your turn.
It is anither case of "yes, the signal says 50mph. But you know, SKR and JJ always drive here at 40"
Probably it is warranted a rule change. Honestly it's not really a necessity and spending that gold in a wardrobe of mbemonic vestments amd 9th lvl spells is faaaaar better. But the current wording says "at tge begining of the turn" and if you need tp attack with the weapon then Duelist does exactly nothing.
|
|
I would add persistent metamagic, but I figure if we go in small bites it will be easier.Not really, Persistent is strong but it is just a slightly more efficient form of Heighten. The problem is the wide variance in defences and the ability therefore to target the weakest defence.
The Tarrasque is a classic example. Leave aside the fact that it is hopeless as a CR25 creature which can't fly and has no ranged attacks and can therefore be reduced to 0HP by sufficient commoners on a flying boat. Its defences are 31/22/12. That makes it very hard to KO with Fortitude effects, gives you a good chance to daze lock it with Dazing evocations but makes it trivially easy to Plane Shift it to the negative material place. With Reach spell you don't even need to get anywhere near it.
There isn't much you can really do about this variance without scrapping the system and starting again.
Not to start the derail, but the Tarrasque has ranged attacks and daze is (as the spell) is mind effecting. Although that may be another metamagic effect to look at, particularly with rods (I really hate rods...) given it doesn't say it is mind effecting and given it is a +3 that is a big bite to give it to make that assumption that it is mind effecting.
My issue with persistent is that it basically forces multiple saves, which when you do the math is much more effective then heighten.
If I have to roll a 10 to save vs persistent, I'm failing 50% on the first and then if I do make it, it's another 50/50.
Heighten of the same is failing on a 12 rather than a 10.
That is a significant difference, particularly thrown on a rod.
|
There is an old thread about it here. SKR suggested it was going to be dealt with in the next round of errata but the wording on the PRD doesn't seem to have changed.
As I recall they try to make sure the PRD matches the current printing, so if it didn't get updated in the sixth printing of the CRB it won't be changed for awhile.
Not to start the derail, but the Tarrasque has ranged attacks and daze is (as the spell) is mind effecting. Although that may be another metamagic effect to look at, particularly with rods (I really hate rods...) given it doesn't say it is mind effecting and given it is a +3 that is a big bite to give it to make that assumption that it is mind effecting.
So you claim that Dazing Spell is mind-affecting, then immediately concede that there's absolutely nothing in the rules to back your position up? Okay then...
|
|
@andrew - I may be missing something, but level 1 you don't exactly have a lot of spells options and you have a low Dex and STR so all you can really do offensively is cast...which I don't see a lot of spells at that level that are going to do much for you.
Your Initiative will be good with Noble Scion, and sidestep secret helps your AC since it moves both to charisma...but what exactly will you be doing?
You aren't getting arcane archivist until 11th, and even then they will be casting a level under and only once a day.
Again, I may be missing something. How do you envision the early levels?
|
|
Not to start the derail, but the Tarrasque has ranged attacks and daze is (as the spell) is mind effecting. Although that may be another metamagic effect to look at, particularly with rods (I really hate rods...) given it doesn't say it is mind effecting and given it is a +3 that is a big bite to give it to make that assumption that it is mind effecting.I had completely forgotten that they added the tail spines.
On the Daze issue the spell Daze may be a mind affecting spell but the condition Daze is not the same as the spell. The would be like saying because Stormbolts stuns the target all Stuns have the [electricity] elemental tag.
Dazed is also addressed in the Glossary which says:
You might want all Daze effects to be mind affecting but they very clearly aren't.Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.
Since we are discussing "if"s and "should"s at this point, do you think they should be?
But again, you are giving an example that is not ambiguous or up for discussion.
If your attack bonus is 10 and I say it is 5, that isn't debatable. I am wrong, there is no grey area.
If you say the material component is consumed before the spell is cast, that is completely debatable.
What Andreww and Gustavo have shown are problems that aren't really debatable. EFS is a problem spell. Paragon Surge is a problem spell.
Blood Money Rune Tin Foil hat, etc, require you to read assumptions into the spell. Technically he turned the door knob, so he killed himself. I didn't kill him, the gun did...etc, etc...
but the simularum IS a problematic spell.
You cam sim a solar. 11hd creatures (1/2 of solar ) CAN have wish. Djinn does.And even without sim free factory, it IS a worrysome spell. Say you are playing Rise of Runelords. Since lvl 13 (or sooner with UMD and scrolls) you can get your own 1/2 copy of KARZAUG. Actually, HALF A DOZEN. In Forgotten, you can copy 1/2 ELMINSTER. Even if you don't cheat it cost, the spell is DAMN POWERFUL.
|
|
But again, you are giving an example that is not ambiguous or up for discussion.
If your attack bonus is 10 and I say it is 5, that isn't debatable. I am wrong, there is no grey area.
If you say the material component is consumed before the spell is cast, that is completely debatable.
What Andreww and Gustavo have shown are problems that aren't really debatable. EFS is a problem spell. Paragon Surge is a problem spell.
Blood Money Rune Tin Foil hat, etc, require you to read assumptions into the spell. Technically he turned the door knob, so he killed himself. I didn't kill him, the gun did...etc, etc...
but the simularum IS a problematic spell.
You cam sim a solar. 11hd creatures (1/2 of solar ) CAN have wish. Djinn does.
And even without sim free factory, it IS a worrysome spell. Say you are playing Rise of Runelords. Since lvl 13 (or sooner with UMD and scrolls) you can get your own 1/2 copy of KARZAUG. Actually, HALF A DOZEN. In Forgotten, you can copy 1/2 ELMINSTER. Even if you don't cheat it cost, the spell is DAMN POWERFUL.
It also says it gets 1/2 of the spell like abilities. That wish would be included isn't in the spell at all.
"it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD"
It is a problematic spell in that short of writing an entire book of what it can and can't do, it falls to GM fiat. Which considering it is a 12 hour casting spell, you and your player should be able to work it out.
Not to say it doesn't need work, particularly with all of the caster level bonuses that seem to stack at this point...and I would love to have a conversation about what they can use as a barometer for power on such things, but in what I've seen of Devs weighing in on it, they are of the opinion generally that it is a spell that requires GM approval, and so it is up to the GM to decide what is and is not part of a 1/2 of a given creature.
The alternative is to remove the spell entirely. I don't want that, but I also don't know how they redesign it.
It's a tough spell. But the assumptions you are making aren't in the spell itself.
|
|
Again, I may be missing something. How do you envision the early levels?Exactly the same as any other caster focused oracle. You wont be in melee, although you likely can be to help with flanking or something as you will be running a decent AC. Early levels will mostly be buffs and maybe some summoning. With spell specialisation early on you can use summons and have them stick around for a longer duration.
At level 7 I expect Persistent Spell to come on line and single target removal by way of Persistent Hold Person, later maybe Blindness or Remove Curse.
By level 9 Dazing Scorching Ray or Flaming Sphere are available and you will also be laying down buffs like Blessing of Fervour.
At level 12 you are Plane Shifting enemies to the negative material plane (seriously, look at some of those will saves) and Persistent Holy Smiting evil doers. You also have a huge range of party buffs to play with.
Seriously it's a single classed Oracle with the best metamagic feats around and a mass of bonus spells known from being human. If it's the half elf version then by level 8 it is using paragon surge regularly to grab whatever divine spell it needs and by level 11 it's grabbing up to level 5 arcane spells.
I'll ask specifically then, what spells are you taking at 1st level and on, and how are you contributing.
I am not trying to attack the build. Clearly at 20th it is pretty awesome, assuming everything audits out (which I have no reason to think it won't, you've been honest so far) but I'm not seeing much early on that it will contribute other than healing, and since it is an oracle even that takes up spell selection slots.
Like I said, I could be missing something, but it looks like you will have decent AC, no not magical offense, and not much magical offense if you are also healing based on the spell list you have available.
Since we are discussing "if"s and "should"s at this point, do you think they should be?Not to start the derail, but the Tarrasque has ranged attacks and daze is (as the spell) is mind effecting. Although that may be another metamagic effect to look at, particularly with rods (I really hate rods...) given it doesn't say it is mind effecting and given it is a +3 that is a big bite to give it to make that assumption that it is mind effecting.I had completely forgotten that they added the tail spines.
On the Daze issue the spell Daze may be a mind affecting spell but the condition Daze is not the same as the spell. The would be like saying because Stormbolts stuns the target all Stuns have the [electricity] elemental tag.
Dazed is also addressed in the Glossary which says:
You might want all Daze effects to be mind affecting but they very clearly aren't.Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.
a kick in the groin is dazing, and not mind affecting
|
|
Like I said, I could be missing something, but it looks like you will have decent AC, no not magical offense, and not much magical offense if you are also healing based on the spell list you have available.I am not doing a level by level breakdown for you because it is quite apparent at this stage that you aren't looking to discuss in good faith. I should have realised that when I started to reply to you again.
Also Oracles get all of the cure or inflict spells automatically as they level up.
Yes cure OR inflict.
And if you are going to accuse me of things every time I ask you a question don't bother...
|
|
a kick in the groin is dazing, and not mind affectingSince we are discussing "if"s and "should"s at this point, do you think they should be?Not to start the derail, but the Tarrasque has ranged attacks and daze is (as the spell) is mind effecting. Although that may be another metamagic effect to look at, particularly with rods (I really hate rods...) given it doesn't say it is mind effecting and given it is a +3 that is a big bite to give it to make that assumption that it is mind effecting.I had completely forgotten that they added the tail spines.
On the Daze issue the spell Daze may be a mind affecting spell but the condition Daze is not the same as the spell. The would be like saying because Stormbolts stuns the target all Stuns have the [electricity] elemental tag.
Dazed is also addressed in the Glossary which says:
You might want all Daze effects to be mind affecting but they very clearly aren't.Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.
Fair point.